Why do we even bother?

[Dravecky43]

TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF:

I don't know about you guys, but it annoys me so much to see all of the Barry-haters badmouthing him and not calming down and listening to reason (at least that's the way I see it). Do any of you have any suggestions for dealing with those posts? Maybe try to ignore them or something?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF:

I don't know about you guys, but it annoys me so much to see all of the Barry-haters badmouthing him and not calming down and listening to reason (at least that's the way I see it). Do any of you have any suggestions for dealing with those posts? Maybe try to ignore them or something?
Let the idiots be idiots. They don't have any clue as to what logic and evidence is. I just ignore them because it's not worth my time.

[KHenry14]

Every now and then I feel compelled to respond to a few of the more idiotic comments about Barry, but on the whole, it's a waste of time since nobody is going to change their mind.

What's interesting to me is how ignorant people are about Barry, particulary how he is as a teammate. Setting aside Jeff Kent (ask his Dodger teammates about him), Barry seems to get along pretty well with his teammates. Heck, even Pierzinski seemed to like Barry. But time and again we read posts about what a cancer he is. People seem to get their info just from SI and sportstalk radio. :laugh

This isn't to say that Barry's a saint. Some of the bad press he gets he deserves, other's (Like Rick Reilly's) he doesn't.

So for the most part, I just shrug it off.

KH14

[Dravecky43]

Ok, thanks. I guess I wsa just overly annoyed after reading different posts that I decided to start this thread. I seem to like the ignoring thing.

[west coast orange and black]

what i try to do is address misinformation.
i have, though, been known to occasionally get sucked into um, a discussion of more than just that. :o

[bondsgirrrl]

TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF:

I don't know about you guys, but it annoys me so much to see all of the Barry-haters badmouthing him and not calming down and listening to reason (at least that's the way I see it). Do any of you have any suggestions for dealing with those posts? Maybe try to ignore them or something?
Yeah ignore them. I will go into the yahoo baseball room and people will see my name and call me names that I cant mentiion here for I will get banned, lol. And without saying a word they do that. I take it for what they are Haters. Any one would love to have him on their team. And if people say no they are lying. Now that its getting to be 2006 yankee fans are hoping to get bonds on their team before he retires, and 3 years ago they said no way. Just goes to show ya how peoples attitude change if they think they have a possiblity of getting him, no matter how far fetched.

[wogdoggy]

one miliion flies cant be wrong guys,face it even in this day and age people with VALUES still "hate" cheaters and liars . I think its great,it shows me theres still hope for society yet. Cmon you want evidence? Are you in denial about the B4 and after pics as well? the swelling head {LITERALLY}. You guys are giants fans, baseball is a passionate fans game, its understandable, but for cryin out loud jump out at look at yourselves, the guys a cheat and you condone him as the greatest? that makes him the greatest cheat and thats all. PLEASE PEOPLE :lookitup :crazy Im a card fan and i loved watching big mac hit the ball a mile but I know he did it with roids and would NEVER have that success without it. REALITY,try some.:laugh

[Dravecky43]

I was about to post something, well, inciting, but I realized that it wouldn't do any good. Very few people listen to the other side of the argument.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

one miliion flies cant be wrong guys,face it even in this day and age people with VALUES still "hate" cheaters and liars .I think its great,it shows me theres still hope for society yet.Cmon you want evidence? Are you in denial about the B4 and after pics as well? the swelling head {LITERALLY}.You guys are giants fans,baseball is a passionate fans game,its understandable,but for cryin out loud jump out at look at yourselves,the guys a cheat and you condone him as the greatest? that makes him the greatest cheat and thats all.PLEASE PEOPLE :lookitup :crazy Im a card fan and i loved watching big mac hit the ball a mile but I know he did it with roids and would NEVER have that success without it.REALITY,try some.:laugh
This is classic example of just plain fallacious thinking. Can you give actual evidence that his head has enlarged? I mean real evidence not just your "opinion". Mearly making assertions is not evidence You argument is a flawed argument. It's called "appealing to popularity".

"Everyone knows so-and-so cheated, therefore he cheated.....:rolleyes:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

[wogdoggy]

ok it feels good to know big mac never cheated now,thanks for removing all doubt.lay down with dogs wake up with fleas.balco being the dog,although he never tested positive only a real "FAN" can sit there and deny.WAKE UP.:crazy

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yeah, just shrug those type of posts off. Just ignore it all. It's worked up to this point hasn't it.

[west coast orange and black]

Honus Wagner Rules: Can you give actual evidence that his head has enlarged?

while bonds still wears the same hat size that he did while at university, his head is larger... but not because of human growth use.

one of the myths of growth hormone is that it makes bones grow longer or larger.
it doesn't. at least not in post-pubescent humans.
sustained use of large amounts of growth hormone will cause bone density and affect one's mandible and other facial features. (look at arnold schwarzeneggar in his early 20s: extra-protruding brow, gapped teeth, extenbded jawline).

it is quite normal and in fact expected that the occipitalis and frontalis gain size when the neck and shoulder are put through rigorous exercise. this causes the look of an enlarged head.
but the perception that bonds' head has grown dramatically larger is just that -- a perception. the fact that his skin is dark and also is smooth (shaved head) adds much to the illusion of a dramatically enlarged head.

[west coast orange and black]

wogdoggy: lay down with dogs wake up with fleas. balco being the dog...


is it your claim that all athletes who used balco products are dirty?
if yes, the federal government investigators disagree with you.
if no, what is it that you actually meant to write?

there is fact, and then there is fiction...

[west coast orange and black]

which takes us to quite a few incorrect notions that Sultan_1895-1948 has about growth hormone, steroids - specifically "the clear" and "the cream", balco, bonds, the federal investigation, the federal grand jury, and its findings.

[west coast orange and black]

bondsgirrrl: Yeah ignore them.


rather than ignore, i use facts on 'em.
while facts do not exonerate any player suspected of drug use, they do pop myth bubbles and correct the misinformation. not stop it, of course, but correct it.
sometimes, some people continue to use misinformation no matter what factual evidence is presented.

[wogdoggy]

you know you can split hairs on this product or that product ,steroid use is illegal in mlb.if you use you cheated. Obviously you have tolerance for cheaters and liars. I dont! If you want to nit pick about hat size well then if that makes you feel better about barry fine. I lost my respect for BIG MAC. He cheated , look at him now he looks literally half the size. Quit beating around the Bush. its almost redicoulous, you are a grown man arent you?:laugh

[west coast orange and black]

wogdoggy: you know you can split hairs on this product or that product ,steroid use is illegal in mlb. if you use you cheated. Obviously you have tolerance for cheaters and liars. I dont! If you want to nit pick about hat size well then if that makes you feel better about barry fine. I lost my respect for BIG MAC. He cheated ,look at him now he looks literally half the size. Quit beating around the Bush. its almost redicoulous,you are a grown man arent you?:laugh

i am not splitting hairs, dude.
bonds' hat size is pointed to by many as evidence of growth hormone use.

you do not have tolerance for cheaters, you say. ok. coolio. what have you done about it?
have you stopped watching major league baseball? if not, just how is it that you stomach looking at literally hundreds of players who used drugs illegally?
surely you recall the realistic percentage of players (not the "5-7%" that was handed to us) who tested positive and thusly kicked in the 2003-2006 work agreement drug-testing clause.

q: why do you keep coming back to mcgwire in a giants thread?

[wogdoggy]

heres why mr giant moderator, it amazes me that a man of your intellegence thinks barry is the real deal.I loved mac watching him play watching the ball LEAVE stadiums, BUT the bottom line he did it CHEATING using ILLEAGAL drugs. YEAH for me it tarnishes EVERYTHING he did. WHY because I know he cheated and YOU KNOW he cheated. Hes a shell of the man he was just 1 stinking year after quitting. COntroversy like barry has just doesnt follow him around for NO REASON. PEOPLE KNOW the feds KNOW and RAFFY knows too. SO once you wake up and get off your lawyer soapbox and be a stand up yeah hes a juicer SO WHAT kinda guy,your part of the problem not the solution.:radio

[wogdoggy]

Just you saying "DUDE" tells me you have ZERO old school ethics.

[Solair Wright]

One thing is for sure, that I'm sick of people that bash Barry Bonds like "oh he used steroids let's give him a lifetime ban for cheating." I just wish people would leave him alone and let the fans enjoy baseball without other fans drowning out the fun.

Just my $0.02 about this.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

which takes us to quite a few incorrect notions that Sultan_1895-1948 has about growth hormone, steroids - specifically "the clear" and "the cream", balco, bonds, the federal investigation, the federal grand jury, and its findings.

And what incorrect notions are those. Aside from someone who has actually used the stuff, I've got as much knowledge as anyone. What is hard to understand here? MLB has never, and still doesn't test for HGH. It increases bone mass (thickness), can improve vision, changes the way fat is distributed in the body (decreases body fat without changing diet), helps with recovery and healing, increases memory and other cognitive functions...thats just a few advantages of HGH, and they aren't arguable, they are proven.

[west coast orange and black]

^^ these are not all of the claims that you have made regarding growth hormone.
also, you have posted that bonds used it and continues to do so. is this correct?

[west coast orange and black]

wogdoggy: heres why mr giant moderator,it amazes me that a man of your intellegence thinks barry is the real deal.I loved mac watching him play watching the ball LEAVE stadiums,BUT the bottom line he did it CHEATING using ILLEAGAL drugs.YEAH for me it tarnishes EVERYTHING he did.WHY because I know he cheated and YOU KNOW he cheated.Hes a shell of the man he was just 1 stinking year after quitting.COntroversy like barry has just doesnt follow him around for NO REASON.PEOPLE KNOW the feds KNOW and RAFFY knows too.SO once you wake up and get off your lawyer soapbox and be a stand up yeah hes a juicer SO WHAT kinda guy,your part of the problem not the solution.:radio

andSOthatWASaverygoodexplanationOFwhyyouiscontinua llyINTRODUCEmcgwireintoabondsTHREAD,yes.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

^^ these are not all of the claims that you have made regarding growth hormone.
also, you have posted that bonds used it and continues to do so. is this correct?

What other claims have I made that aren't true?

There's no reason to assume that he didn't use HGH. That would be like ordering a bun, ketchup, relish, mustard, and a soda, without ordering the actual hot dog. I think Bonds "stacked" various forms eventually, and was always in search of the next best thing. When you're seeing early benefits, it's only natural to want to ugrade when better forms become available, especially if you can get your hands on it first. HGH does a lot of things, I only named a few.

[west coast orange and black]

Sultan_1895-1948: HGH does a lot of things, I only named a few... There's no reason to assume that he didn't use HGH... What other claims have I made that aren't true?

several of the attributes that you have hitched to hgh are not verified attributes at all. f'rinstance, there are no scientific findings from a reliable source that agrees with your notion that white muscles -- so-called fast-twitch muscles and superfast-twitch muscles -- can perform at a greater rate for top athletes after prolonged hgh treatment. the few controlled studies that have been done point to no real benefits for healthy athletes, especially superior athletes.

think of this way: use of human growth hormone by adults is more like getting a lube job than installing a high performance engine.

in fact, there is no reliable research that demonstrates that hgh improves athletic performance when steroid use is absent... yet you claim that bonds continues to use hgh. this smacks in the face of even the most basic general knowledge of hgh properties and benefits. the drug testing that professional athletes undergo are very stringent and nearly impossible to beat. the risks of trying to get something past them are great. so great that it is not reasonable to believe that a top athlete would risk attempting to do so.

this is critical in the argument because hgh use by conditioned athletes without taking steroids serves no real purpose.

while true that bonds and thousands of other athletes are no doubt in search of "the next best thing", it is improbable that these athletes would "ugrade" to substances that could, ironically, take everything away from them. medical advances have been made in leaps and bounds in the past 20 years, and they continue to be made... on both sides of the law.

the risks far exceed and outweigh the benefits.

you have referred to bonds' "moonface" and "bloated" appearance. growth hormone elongates the human body. it tones it and tightens i. do the larger versions of bonds of the past five years appear elongated and super-toned? according to you, no.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Like I said before, I think Bonds stacked different substances.

By age 30, HGH in normal people declines by as much as 80%. Bonds isn't adding a super high tech engine, he's replacing his older one with a new one. It's a fountain of youth.

HGH greatly reduces body fat, and steroids creates a bloated look especially in the face and neck because of water retention.

You can claim all you want that there have been no positive tests, and that may be true. Bonds is a smart man who has enough money and knows the right people. MLB testing used to be a complete joke, and even now doesn't pass the sniff test. With this much money and fame on the line, you honestly don't think athletes would take the chance. Come on now.

[west coast orange and black]

Sultan_1895-1948: ...I think Bonds stacked different substances.
care to take a shot at what types of substances?



By age 30, HGH in normal people declines by as much as 80%. Bonds isn't adding a super high tech engine, he's replacing his older one with a new one. It's a fountain of youth.
by itself, growth hormone use by adults is predominantly by cancer patients. they are not looking for a fountain of youth, they are looking for a bit more mobility and a bit less pain.

athletes looking at gh for any sort of edge are looking in the wrong direction, as it must be used with other substances -- steroids 90+ % of the time -- in order to be beneficial.



You can claim all you want that there have been no positive tests, and that may be true. Bonds is a smart man who has enough money and knows the right people.
why is it that you believe that only bonds has the right connections?
or do you mean that there is a conspiracy by mlb and/or the testers?



With this much money and fame on the line, you honestly don't think athletes would take the chance.
pharmaceudical advances are made on both sides of the aisle, sultan.

also, note just how the balco story came to light. your claim is that bonds is still taking the chance with banned substances... even though he has no guarantee that a testing breakthrough will occur at any moment.

let's say that it is true that bonds "knows the right people." this does not mean that everyone out there is in his corner. the balco story did in fact unfold without warning.

so, "with this much money and fame on the line", i do not think that bonds would put all of his trust in total strangers and wager against medical breakthrough and jeopardize it all.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I actually have never said that I believe he is still using anything at this moment. His knee issues came about at a convenient time, I'll just leave that at that.

Speaking of HGH. It's intended use is for cancer patients, because it delivers. Players have shot horse tranquilizer also, because of what it delivers. Just because something is "intended" for one use, doesn't mean it can't be beneficial to anyone who wishes to take it.

There are many benefits of HGH, but the main one for a player like Bonds, was the increases bone mass. If you're taking steroids, then you are adding a lot of weight. Weight which your god given body isn't mean to support. We are all given a specific frame. Bonds' natural frame is 6'1" 190-195 or so. To decrease the risk of injury while doing steroids, it's only natural to take HGH, to give support to your frame/tendons/ligaments. That's why I said earlier that it's only natural to assume he also took HGH. It's a preventative measure which also provides other benefits.

I think many players have connections. I believe there was, and still are many latino players who have MLB dreams, and are taking stuff because they are told "they haven't found a test for this stuff, and we will let you know as soon as they do." Honestly, do you really not think that new stuff is being developed right this very minute, if it hasn't already been? And do you not think the people who create this crap are aware as soon as a test becomes available. They are at the head of any and all info regarding performance enhancers, and will give warning to MLB players. Bonds had enough money to ensure his reputation, is what I'm saying.

One could guess at what substances Bonds has taken, but why try. I'd be better off trying to figure women out completely. I have neither the time or energy to do either, although the reward for the latter would be much more satisfying. Until then, I'll work with what I know, and use logical assumptions when required.

I've said before that I think he started way back, before anyone realizes. It becomes an addiction, you become addicted to the effects mentally and physically. I think he took it to the next level after the McGwire/Sosa hr chase because he couldn't stand not being in the brightest light possible. He knew he was on his way to retiring as a lower upper tier hall of famer, so he really didn't have much to lose, especially when like I said before; it wasn't much of a risk when he had the resources to ensure thievery.

When I first saw the title to this thread, I thought it was for the realists out there, cause I ask myself the same thing about his topic.

[KHenry14]

I've said before that I think he started way back, before anyone realizes. It becomes an addiction, you become addicted to the effects mentally and physically. I think he took it to the next level after the McGwire/Sosa hr chase because he couldn't stand not being in the brightest light possible. He knew he was on his way to retiring as a lower upper tier hall of famer, so he really didn't have much to lose, especially when like I said before; it wasn't much of a risk when he had the resources to ensure thievery.

When I first saw the title to this thread, I thought it was for the realists out there, cause I ask myself the same thing about his topic.

Sultan, you made some valid points until this last paragraph. Unless you have some divination or psychic powers that we don't know about...you just made that last stuff up. And because of that, you lose a ton of credibility.

It astounds me that you really think Barry would spend a minute thinking about what "tier" HOFer he might be. According to you, he started real early in the 90's, frankly by then he was probably already in the Hall. And even if we assume all your contentions about his alleged PED usage were true, do you really think he did any of that merely so he could outshine McGwire or Sosa??? Believe it or not (and Barry doesn't care if you don't), Barry's all about winning. And he knows that his team's best chance for winning is if he plays well. For example, there is little doubt the Giants win the West if Barry even played 100 games last year. And that's why he played on one leg at the end of last season, to help his team win a pennant. And why did he do that last year? Because he loves the game. It's all he's known since he was a little boy running around the Giants locker room with his Dad and his Godfather. It's the same reason he spent seasons refining his swing into the power swing it is now as opposed to his inside out swing of his youth. Don't get me wrong, Barry has a burning desire to be the best player in MLB, and maybe that drove him into the netherworld of PED's. Frankly I don't know if he did them or not. What I do know is that you really don't know very much about Barry the person.

KH14

[wogdoggy]

Sultan, you made some valid points until this last paragraph. Unless you have some divination or psychic powers that we don't know about...you just made that last stuff up. And because of that, you lose a ton of credibility.

It astounds me that you really think Barry would spend a minute thinking about what "tier" HOFer he might be. According to you, he started real early in the 90's, frankly by then he was probably already in the Hall. And even if we assume all your contentions about his alleged PED usage were true, do you really think he did any of that merely so he could outshine McGwire or Sosa??? Believe it or not (and Barry doesn't care if you don't), Barry's all about winning. And he knows that his team's best chance for winning is if he plays well. For example, there is little doubt the Giants win the West if Barry even played 100 games last year. And that's why he played on one leg at the end of last season, to help his team win a pennant. And why did he do that last year? Because he loves the game. It's all he's known since he was a little boy running around the Giants locker room with his Dad and his Godfather. It's the same reason he spent seasons refining his swing into the power swing it is now as opposed to his inside out swing of his youth. Don't get me wrong, Barry has a burning desire to be the best player in MLB, and maybe that drove him into the netherworld of PED's. Frankly I don't know if he did them or not. What I do know is that you really don't know very much about Barry the person.


CREDIBILITY? now thats a hoot. Anybody knows that Sultans statement is specualtion. But it makes sense.you yourself said he loves the game so much and has been around baseball forever, I'm sure his dreams to be the best as a kid followed him into his adulthood as well,and thats great. But he cheated,and i bet he did pump it up when sosa mac got the limelight. Greed motivates. and sultan i agree the realist wonder how that KNEE injury could have camee at a better time. Your post hit it!:dance :)

[KHenry14]

Oh, the ol' "Barry invented his injury" canard. I guess having a staph infection isn't good enough for the world. But you are intitled to believe whatever you want, even if you couldn't be more wrong.

Wogy, I fully understand that Barry's public persona lends itself to people doubting everything that concerns him. Barry deserves some of the blame for this, some he doesn't. But it's just a fact that he had this knee injury, and not you or the Skip Bayless' of the world can change that fact. And yes Wogy, Barry passed his drug tests while he was on the DL.

And greed? Barry already had more money than he can spend. Perhaps Occam's Razor applies here....the simplest of theories is more likely the truth. Barry love's baseball and wants to win is the simplest explanation for all this. And did that desire to win drive him to PED's, nobody knows for sure.

KH14

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan, you made some valid points until this last paragraph. Unless you have some divination or psychic powers that we don't know about...you just made that last stuff up. And because of that, you lose a ton of credibility.

It astounds me that you really think Barry would spend a minute thinking about what "tier" HOFer he might be. According to you, he started real early in the 90's, frankly by then he was probably already in the Hall. And even if we assume all your contentions about his alleged PED usage were true, do you really think he did any of that merely so he could outshine McGwire or Sosa??? Believe it or not (and Barry doesn't care if you don't), Barry's all about winning. And he knows that his team's best chance for winning is if he plays well. For example, there is little doubt the Giants win the West if Barry even played 100 games last year. And that's why he played on one leg at the end of last season, to help his team win a pennant. And why did he do that last year? Because he loves the game. It's all he's known since he was a little boy running around the Giants locker room with his Dad and his Godfather. It's the same reason he spent seasons refining his swing into the power swing it is now as opposed to his inside out swing of his youth. Don't get me wrong, Barry has a burning desire to be the best player in MLB, and maybe that drove him into the netherworld of PED's. Frankly I don't know if he did them or not. What I do know is that you really don't know very much about Barry the person.

KH14

I never claimed to be an expert on what happened. It's my opinion that he started with a simple form back in the mid 90's, then went to bigger and better things after 98. The addiction part of steroids is absolutely true, so you lose credibility if you don't acknowledge that.

It's your opinion that Barry is all about winning. Everything I've seen, read, and heard about Barry leads me to believe Barry is all about Barry. You honestly don't think that with his ego, he wasn't affected at all by the McGwire/Sosa thing?

[wogdoggy]

greed not in the form of money,greed comes in all forms.he coulnt stand watchin mac and sosa in the limelight.Nobody knows for sure? thats beautiful.lol:laugh

[The Big C]

I think that ultimately until something factual comes out like it did with Palmeiro, there is enough evidence both ways that people will believe what they want to. Giants fans (and Bonds supporters) should be used to it by now anyway, so ignoring it shouldn't really be a problem, should it?

I personally don't like Barry from what I have heard about him, and that makes it easier to believe bad things about him. I certainly hope that not all of what I hear is true though, because if it is he is truly a despicable human being. But I try not to argue about this stuff because most people who take the time to argue about it are much more well informed than I.

I, like many others, will continue believing what I already hold to be true until I hear what I deem to be sufficient evidence to the contrary. And what's sad is that such evidence may not exist, or may not ever be brought to light. Just another testament to the incredible diservice that Selig and his regime have done to the game of baseball by being about 15 years behind the curve on the issue of steroids.

[west coast orange and black]

Sultan: I actually have never said that I believe he is still using anything at this moment.
when do you think bonds stopped the steroids, sultan?
do you believe that bonds is using growth hormone?


His knee issues came about at a convenient time, I'll just leave that at that.
c'mon, man. this is crazy talk.
either you are claiming that bonds did not incur a very serious knee injury or, um, what?


Just because something is "intended" for one use, doesn't mean it can't be beneficial to anyone who wishes to take it.
true, but you attach an assumption to this fact.


Bonds' natural frame is 6'1" 190-195 or so.
how did you conclude this?


To decrease the risk of injury while doing steroids, it's only natural to take HGH, to give support to your frame/tendons/ligaments. That's why I said earlier that it's only natural to assume he also took HGH. It's a preventative measure which also provides other benefits.
assumption attached to fact again.


I think many players have connections.
actually, all of them do or could very easily.


I believe there was, and still are many latino players who have MLB dreams, and are taking stuff because they are told "they haven't found a test for this stuff, and we will let you know as soon as they do."
why are "latino players" singled out here?


Honestly, do you really not think that new stuff is being developed right this very minute, if it hasn't already been?
of course new substances are being created. the cat-and-mouse game has been going on for more than four decades. what gave you the idea that i am not aware of this?


And do you not think the people who create this crap are aware as soon as a test becomes available. They are at the head of any and all info regarding performance enhancers, and will give warning to MLB players.
i strongly disagree, sultan.
tests are developed by the people trying to catch the substance creators.
they are on opposite teams, so to speak.
take the balco case, f'rinstance. if it is true that the creators are apprised whenever a test for a specific substance becomes available, how is it that raids on the balco boys netted evidence of misdeads?


Bonds had enough money to ensure his reputation, is what I'm saying.
not sure what you mean here.


One could guess at what substances Bonds has taken, but why try. I'd be better off trying to figure women out completely. I have neither the time or energy to do either, although the reward for the latter would be much more satisfying. Until then, I'll work with what I know, and use logical assumptions when required.
ok, i am with you on this. (funny stuff, by the way.)


I've said before that I think he started way back, before anyone realizes. It becomes an addiction, you become addicted to the effects mentally and physically.
i am not sure what you mean by this, sultan. steroids are not physically addictive.
i believe that it comes down to the specific goal(s) of the steroid use.
athletes use steroids to attain specific goals. for non-tested athletes, the reasons are numerous: better athletic performance, better physique, ego, bragging rights, etc.

but the tested athlete, nearly always, has one sole pupose in mind: better performance.

and so singlemindedly the athlete uses the steroids under watchful eyes and in a strictly controlled environment. it is the very rare exeption when the tested athlete comes anywhere close to becoming "addicted" to the results of steroid use, as it is all about the performance and size of the paycheck, not the size of the biceps.


I think he took it to the next level after the McGwire/Sosa hr chase because he couldn't stand not being in the brightest light possible.
i believe that bonds takes care of what he can take care of, and leaves the rest to others.
i do not agree with this, sultan.


He knew he was on his way to retiring as a lower upper tier hall of famer, so he really didn't have much to lose, especially when like I said before; it wasn't much of a risk when he had the resources to ensure thievery.
well, any tested athlete who uses assumes several great risks: physical, monetary, historical stature within the sport, etc. it is your claim that bonds started using before testing was initiated and continued to use afterwards, correct?


When I first saw the title to this thread, I thought it was for the realists out there, cause I ask myself the same thing about his topic.
i am filled with holiday spirit, sultan, and so rather than take this as the dig as you intended, i will simply remind you that you are not the sole proprietor of reasonableness and reality on the bonds steroid issue.
as you have written, you are posting your opinions... and not all of them are factual, for certain.


The addiction part of steroids is absolutely true, so you lose credibility if you don't acknowledge that.
i hold that very very few tested athletes become addicted in any way to steroids. in fact, many top atletic physicians now concur with what many non-tested athletes have long known and practiced: steroids can be a part of a regular maintenance program for well-conditioned athletes.
it is all about staying within the boundaries of the stated goal, maintaining the regimen and moderation. there are many atletes who have used steroids for nearly two decades in such a manner without ailment.


It's your opinion that Barry is all about winning. Everything I've seen, read, and heard about Barry leads me to believe Barry is all about Barry. You honestly don't think that with his ego, he wasn't affected at all by the McGwire/Sosa thing?
i do not think that bonds cares only for himself. but i do not believe that he cares only about winning, either.
i think that the two are inseperatable for just about all top athletes who participate in team sports. why else would they choose a team sport to begin with?

as far as mcgwire/sosa: it is possible that that summer affected bonds, sure... but not in the way that you have described, sultan.
summer98 had nothing to do with bonds' training regimen and his drive to be the best that he can possibly be.

[wogdoggy]

The addiction part of steroids is absolutely true, so you lose credibility if you don't acknowledge that


Don't kid yourself about the MENTAL addiction steroids can be responsible for. INDIVIDUALS who take them see the RESULTS and that in itself can become addicting.:lookitup

[west coast orange and black]

wogdoggy: Don't kid yourself about the MENTAL addiction steroids can be responsible for. INDIVIDUALS who take them see the RESULTS and that in itself can become addicting.

this may hold true for non-tested athletes, wogdoggy, but nearly all athletes who get their oil checked very regularly are in absolutely no danger of the results of steroids becoming a problem of any sort.
again, athletes have been known to be on 10-, 15-, 20-year steroid programs without physical harm to themselves.
it is all about moderation and proper maintenance.

tested athletes who use are under very close care of physicians and others.
tested athletes who use are genuinely interested in the net performance gains, not a bettered physique.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

west coast, steroids are addictive in many ways, period. You can spin it however you want and double talk til you're blue in the face. It's the truth, GENERALLY SPEAKING of course.

[wogdoggy]

10-, 15-, 20-year steroid programs without physical harm to themselves.



Reread your own sentence on addiction.After twenty years I would think there would be a problem.If you dramk everyday for twenty years would you admit of alcholism?:dance :waving :waving :waving :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[west coast orange and black]

wogdoggy: Reread your own sentence on addiction. After twenty years I would think there would be a problem. If you dramk everyday for twenty years would you admit of alcholism?

alcoholism is characterized by excessive consumption of and dependence on alcoholic beverages. so it is quite possible that one could drink alcohol every day for 50 years and not ever drink to excess, nor have a dependency.

[west coast orange and black]

Sultan_1895-1948:west coast, steroids are addictive in many ways, period. You can spin it however you want and double talk til you're blue in the face. It's the truth, GENERALLY SPEAKING of course.

steroids can be addictive, yes. but to state that they definitley are is an absolute falsehood.

if you believe that i spun and double-talked, please point out where i did.

also, you failed to answer any of my questions. questions brought up by your statements.
here is one that oughtta be easy for you, since you state such so matter of factly.

Bonds' natural frame is 6'1" 190-195 or so.
how did you conclude this?

[sandlot]

Barry has gained considerable weight over the past decade, in his case mostly (but not all) muscle. I've gained a few more pounds than he has over the same period, very little of it muscle. I didn't use steroids (maybe I should have :)) but although my face appears bloated compared to before, my hat size remains the same. My point is that weight gain and age change one's appearance naturally, not usually for the better, and I don't think one can use that alone as a reliable criterion of anything.

Having disposed of the hat-size canard, the basic argument put forward by Bonds doubters seems, from memory, to be based primarily upon the following: (1) enlargement of his physique and rapid muscle-mass gain; (2) significantly enhanced performance as measured by production; (3) high-level performance at an age when most players evidence a decline; (4) admitted use of supplements, the nature of which he's unclear about but categorically asserts were not steroids; (5) accusations by Jose Canseco, who's been right about some other players; (6) association with Balco; (7) statements attributed to players like Sheffield saying they'd wanted to use whatever Barry used, and were given "clear" and "cream"; (8) statements attributed to Barry to the effect that there are more important things to talk about than whether he and/or others used steroids; (9) the fact that he was subpoenad to testify to a Grand Jury looking into drugs and sports; (10) the [selective] leaking to the press of testimony given to the Grand Jury, but which to date has not resulted in a charge against Bonds or any other player; (11) statements made by Bonds that have indicated arrogance, disrespect for great players, possible rascism, bad taste and occasional stupidity; (12) never having liked Bonds to begin with, and finally (13) the lack of any other satisfactory explanation for his late-career achievements beyond possessing amazing talent and longevity.

The pro-Barry case is somewhat simpler. Despite all of the above, (1) he has never failed a drug test; (2) he's never admitted use; (3) he's not been proven in any way to have ever used banned products; (4) he is considered even by many critics probably the best baseball player, ever; (5) his work ethic and exercise regime are legendary; (6) a lot of the criticism of him seems to contain a racial component, even when that's denied; also, (7) while it's agreed that steroid use might aid short-term healing and recovery, there is no concrete scientific proof that they will help anyone to perform at a level beyond the talent that he or she naturally possesses, and finally (8) in America, a person -- even Barry Bonds -- has a Constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

What have I left out?

[Dravecky43]

Barry has gained considerable weight over the past decade, in his case mostly (but not all) muscle. I've gained a few more pounds than he has over the same period, very little of it muscle. I didn't use steroids (maybe I should have :)) but although my face appears bloated compared to before, my hat size remains the same. My point is that weight gain and age change one's appearance naturally, not usually for the better, and I don't think one can use that alone as a reliable criterion of anything.

Having disposed of the hat-size canard, the basic argument put forward by Bonds doubters seems, from memory, to be based primarily upon the following: (1) enlargement of his physique and rapid muscle-mass gain; (2) significantly enhanced performance as measured by production; (3) high-level performance at an age when most players evidence a decline; (4) admitted use of supplements, the nature of which he's unclear about but categorically asserts were not steroids; (5) accusations by Jose Canseco, who's been right about some other players; (6) association with Balco; (7) statements attributed to players like Sheffield saying they'd wanted to use whatever Barry used, and were given "clear" and "cream"; (8) statements attributed to Barry to the effect that there are more important things to talk about than whether he and/or others used steroids; (9) the fact that he was subpoenad to testify to a Grand Jury looking into drugs and sports; (10) the [selective] leaking to the press of testimony given to the Grand Jury, but which to date has not resulted in a charge against Bonds or any other player; (11) statements made by Bonds that have indicated arrogance, disrespect for great players, possible rascism, bad taste and occasional stupidity; (12) never having liked Bonds to begin with, and finally (13) the lack of any other satisfactory explanation for his late-career achievements beyond possessing amazing talent and longevity.

The pro-Barry case is somewhat simpler. Despite all of the above, (1) he has never failed a drug test; (2) he's never admitted use; (3) he's not been proven in any way to have ever used banned products; (4) he is considered even by many critics probably the best baseball player, ever; (5) his work ethic and exercise regime are legendary; (6) a lot of the criticism of him seems to contain a racial component, even when that's denied; also, (7) while it's agreed that steroid use might aid short-term healing and recovery, there is no concrete scientific proof that they will help anyone to perform at a level beyond the talent that he or she naturally possesses, and finally (8) in America, a person -- even Barry Bonds -- has a Constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

What have I left out?
Wow. That seems about right. Just a question, though. Did Canseco really specifically accuse Barry of using steroids? I mean, I heard that in his book (which I have little interest in reading) he accuses only players that he played with, and of course that doesn't include Barry. Does that mean he said something that I just missed?

[wogdoggy]

You should have named it 13 good reasons why bonds is a juicer.The 13 certainly have creedence.

[KHenry14]

finally (13) the lack of any other satisfactory explanation for his late-career achievements beyond possessing amazing talent and longevity.

Sand, you made a number of valid points, and I agree with many of them, except for #13. I've said it many times on this board and I'll keep saying it, Barry made a significant change in his swing that turned him into a power hitter instead of an inside out gap hitter. So his numbers from early in his career to later are going to be different because of that change. And this change didn't come overnight, it took a few years of work with his Dad and Willie to get it right. Plus, his plate discipline went from good to legendary, and PED's didn't have anything to do with either of those improvements.

Mind you, I'm not saying that his numbers were solely based upon a swing change and plate discipline, all I am arguing is that there is one factual reason for a performance increase.

KH14

[wogdoggy]

It s a theory, BUT Macgwire changed his swing as well from his earlier days in oakland. The whole group of them are guilty. Macgwire palmero all of them. Have you seen Mark macgwire since hes been off the juice. Do you think the skinny mac could have produced like the roided Mac?

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: (1) enlargement of his physique and rapid muscle-mass gain
bonds has employed the very best nutrition and diet experts for years. he also radically changed his workout regimen, exacting great results.

(2) significantly enhanced performance as measured by production
this seems to be arrived at by going backwards.
if not for the production, would it still be claimed that bonds used?

(3) high-level performance at an age when most players evidence a decline
remarkable achievements not easily explained. but i kinda look at this claim as i do sprinters:
it is not necessarily the fastest who wins, but the one who slows the slowest.

(4) admitted use of supplements, the nature of which he's unclear about but categorically asserts were not steroids
check.

(5) accusations by Jose Canseco, who's been right about some other players
not sure that this happened, sandlot.

(6) association with Balco
nearly 700 professional athletes from at least 67 professional basketball, football, hockey and baseball teams used balco products. are they all guilty simply by association?

(7) statements attributed to players like Sheffield saying they'd wanted to use whatever Barry used, and were given "clear" and "cream"
the substances allegedly used by sheffield that were tested by the feds could not be satisfactorily linked to the substances known as "the cream" and "the clear".
it is not known what the substances used by sheffield actually were.
it is not known what the substances used by bonds actually were.
bonds claimed that he used legal substances only.

(8) statements attributed to Barry to the effect that there are more important things to talk about than whether he and/or others used steroids
that was indeed his stated opinion.

(9) the fact that he was subpoenad to testify to a Grand Jury looking into drugs and sports
he had a working relationship with victor conte and balco so it was a natch that he would be subpeonaed; bonds was the big fish from day one.

(10) the [selective] leaking to the press of testimony given to the Grand Jury, but which to date has not resulted in a charge against Bonds or any other player
either true or: the entire testimony was handed to fainaru-wada and williams but they cherry-picked it for their own purposes. (same result, though: no federal indictments.)
i believe that the two san francisco chronicle staff reporters are still on leave from the newspaper writing their book on the balco/bonds affair.

(11) statements made by Bonds that have indicated arrogance, disrespect for great players, possible rascism, bad taste and occasional stupidity
true.

(12) never having liked Bonds to begin with
true.

(13) the lack of any other satisfactory explanation for his late-career achievements beyond possessing amazing talent and longevity
though unsatisfactory to many, i still hafta go with ken on this one... sorta.
bonds not only changed his entire approach to the batter's box over the watchful eyes of bonds the senior and mays, but he also became a more dedicated bonds, a hungrier, more disciplined bonds.
the two versions of the same man are nowhere near related, so to speak.

..................................

(1) he has never failed a drug test
true.

(2) he's never admitted use
true.

(3) he's not been proven in any way to have ever used banned products
true.

(4) he is considered even by many critics probably the best baseball player, ever
true.

(5) his work ethic and exercise regime are legendary
true.

(6) a lot of the criticism of him seems to contain a racial component, even when that's denied
true.

(7) while it's agreed that steroid use might aid short-term healing and recovery, there is no concrete scientific proof that they will help anyone to perform at a level beyond the talent that he or she naturally possesses
true. no quantifying evidence has ever been produced.

(8) in America, a person -- even Barry Bonds -- has a Constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty
true.

What have I left out?
not much, man. nearly nothing, in my book.

[sandlot]

Sand, you made a number of valid points, and I agree with many of them, except for #13. I've said it many times on this board and I'll keep saying it, Barry made a significant change in his swing that turned him into a power hitter instead of an inside out gap hitter. So his numbers from early in his career to later are going to be different because of that change. And this change didn't come overnight, it took a few years of work with his Dad and Willie to get it right. Plus, his plate discipline went from good to legendary, and PED's didn't have anything to do with either of those improvements.

Mind you, I'm not saying that his numbers were solely based upon a swing change and plate discipline, all I am arguing is that there is one factual reason for a performance increase. To be clear, I'm not making the case for or against, simply summarizing what I recall, and putting it out there for comment, correction, clarification or whatever. As for #13, the Swing Factor: Yes, he changed the swing, just as Tiger Woods changed his (evidence of steroids in golf?), and this no doubt affected his performance. But we have no idea (a) how the performance was affected, (b) what his performance would have been had he not made those adjustments, or (c) whether he was using PEDs at the same time, or (d) if he was using PEDS, what effects if any would hypothetically have been achieved by the complex and complicated combination/interaction of PEDS, changed swing, physical alteration, superb coaching, intensive conditioning and more experience watching major league pitching, or (e) whether the key to the whole deal was learning plate discipline beyond that of most mortals. In the end, I can see no objective correlative by which to measure anything.

But the point in the context of the debate is this: Is the "changed swing" a satisfactory explanation? For you and some others, perhaps. But I suggest that for those who've already made a judgment of "juiced" based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no satisfactory explanation that does not involve the use of steroids, HGH or some other as-yet-unknown (to us) chemicals.

[sandlot]

sandlot: (1) enlargement of his physique and rapid muscle-mass gain
bonds has employed the very best nutrition and diet experts for years. he also radically changed his workout regimen, exacting great results.

(2) significantly enhanced performance as measured by production
this seems to be arrived at by going backwards.
if not for the production, would it still be claimed that bonds used?

(3) high-level performance at an age when most players evidence a decline
remarkable achievements not easily explained. but i kinda look at this claim as i do sprinters:
it is not necessarily the fastest who wins, but the one who slows the slowest.

(4) admitted use of supplements, the nature of which he's unclear about but categorically asserts were not steroids
check.

(5) accusations by Jose Canseco, who's been right about some other players
not sure that this happened, sandlot.

(6) association with Balco
nearly 700 professional athletes from at least 67 professional basketball, football, hockey and baseball teams used balco products. are they all guilty simply by association?

(7) statements attributed to players like Sheffield saying they'd wanted to use whatever Barry used, and were given "clear" and "cream"
the substances allegedly used by sheffield that were tested by the feds could not be satisfactorily linked to the substances known as "the cream" and "the clear".
it is not known what the substances used by sheffield actually were.
it is not known what the substances used by bonds actually were.
bonds claimed that he used legal substances only.

(8) statements attributed to Barry to the effect that there are more important things to talk about than whether he and/or others used steroids
that was indeed his stated opinion.

(9) the fact that he was subpoenad to testify to a Grand Jury looking into drugs and sports
he had a working relationship with victor conte and balco so it was a natch that he would be subpeonaed; bonds was the big fish from day one.

(10) the [selective] leaking to the press of testimony given to the Grand Jury, but which to date has not resulted in a charge against Bonds or any other player
either true or: the entire testimony was handed to fainaru-wada and williams but they cherry-picked it for their own purposes. (same result, though: no federal indictments.)
i believe that the two san francisco chronicle staff reporters are still on leave from the newspaper writing their book on the balco/bonds affair.

(11) statements made by Bonds that have indicated arrogance, disrespect for great players, possible rascism, bad taste and occasional stupidity
true.

(12) never having liked Bonds to begin with
true.

(13) the lack of any other satisfactory explanation for his late-career achievements beyond possessing amazing talent and longevity
though unsatisfactory to many, i still hafta go with ken on this one... sorta.
bonds not only changed his entire approach to the batter's box over the watchful eyes of bonds the senior and mays, but he also became a more dedicated bonds, a hungrier, more disciplined bonds.
the two versions of the same man are nowhere near related, so to speak.

..................................

(1) he has never failed a drug test
true.

(2) he's never admitted use
true.

(3) he's not been proven in any way to have ever used banned products
true.

(4) he is considered even by many critics probably the best baseball player, ever
true.

(5) his work ethic and exercise regime are legendary
true.

(6) a lot of the criticism of him seems to contain a racial component, even when that's denied
true.

(7) while it's agreed that steroid use might aid short-term healing and recovery, there is no concrete scientific proof that they will help anyone to perform at a level beyond the talent that he or she naturally possesses
true. no quantifying evidence has ever been produced.

(8) in America, a person -- even Barry Bonds -- has a Constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty
true.

What have I left out?
not much, man. nearly nothing, in my book. Okay, point taken, I'll change #2 to read "significantly enhanced performance as indicated by production" -- and of course, it is going backwards, as it's the marked increase in production that has raised a red flag for so many observers. If Barry's production had remained constant with his previous years' output, would we even be discussing this? He could have been mainlining WD40 and who'd know, or care?

I'll also modify #5, as I haven't read Canseco's book, and he may not have pointed to Barry by name. However, Canseco made a string of accusations and innuendos, based on published reports and interviews, creating a furor into which Bonds and other athletes have been drawn. That Canseco has apparently been right about some charges has made it worse for anyone implicated, because the public assumption will largely be one of guilt. So make that read "accusations made by Jose Canseco against other ballplayers, some subsequently shown to be true, which has served to support the assumption that Bonds is also 'juiced'"


Guilt by association is the point of #6 and, yes, any and all athletes publicly linked to Balco would stand to suffer by the connection. Being guilty and being guilty by association are different things, but it's a distinction lost on many folks. That Bonds had some sort of close working relationship with Balco just serves to make a bad situation worse.

[wogdoggy]

Good thread guys!:clapping

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: I'll change #2 to read "significantly enhanced performance as indicated by production"
i go along with this.

If Barry's production had remained contact with his previous years' output... who'd know, or care?
uh, pretty much no one, sandlot; yer right.

That Canseco has apparently been right about some charges... So make that read "accusations made by Jose Canseco against other ballplayers, some subsequently shown to be true, which has served to support the assumption that Bonds is also 'juiced'"
no argument here.

Being guilty and being guilty by association are different things, but it's a distinction lost on many folks. That Bonds had some sort of close working relationship with Balco just serves to make a bad situation worse.
agreed, sandlot.

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: To be clear, I'm not making the case for or against, simply summarizing...
and an excellant summarization it is.

But we have no idea (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)... In the end, I can see no objective correlative by which to measure anything.
so very true, sandlot. which is pretty much why my stance remains "i do not know".

Is the "changed swing" a satisfactory explanation?
the swing itself does not wholly explain. but to me, bonds' somewhat radical departure from what were his ideas in the batting box to what they became, his changed outlook of his mentors, the changes in his regimen and diet and overall way of life, his markedly different take on his career and achievements and standing in the game, and his now very clear focus on what he wants to accomplish occurred at approximatley the same time, and are not independent of each other. together they form bonds' gameplan.
i believe them to be inseparable; a chain is as strong as its weakest link.

to me, these tethered factors right now are a satisfactory explanation. should more information become available then perhaps i could better decide if he used or not.

I suggest that for those who've already made a judgment of "juiced" based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no satisfactory explanation that does not involve the use of steroids, HGH or some other as-yet-unknown (to us) chemicals.
agreed.

[KHenry14]

To be clear, I'm not making the case for or against, simply summarizing what I recall, and putting it out there for comment, correction, clarification or whatever. As for #13, the Swing Factor: Yes, he changed the swing, just as Tiger Woods changed his (evidence of steroids in golf?), and this no doubt affected his performance. But we have no idea (a) how the performance was affected, (b) what his performance would have been had he not made those adjustments, or (c) whether he was using PEDs at the same time, or (d) if he was using PEDS, what effects if any would hypothetically have been achieved by the complex and complicated combination/interaction of PEDS, changed swing, physical alteration, superb coaching, intensive conditioning and more experience watching major league pitching, or (e) whether the key to the whole deal was learning plate discipline beyond that of most mortals. In the end, I can see no objective correlative by which to measure anything.

But the point in the context of the debate is this: Is the "changed swing" a satisfactory explanation? For you and some others, perhaps. But I suggest that for those who've already made a judgment of "juiced" based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no satisfactory explanation that does not involve the use of steroids, HGH or some other as-yet-unknown (to us) chemicals.

I thought I made it clear that I didn't necessarily think the swing change by itself was the reason for the increase in numbers. But I do think it was part of the equation, maybe more of an element than you do. But my point was that you didn't see any reason for the increase other than PED's, and I gave you two reasons.

KH14

[Sultan_1895-1948]

[COLOR="gray"](7) statements attributed to players like Sheffield saying they'd wanted to use whatever Barry used, and were given "clear" and "cream"
the substances allegedly used by sheffield that were tested by the feds could not be satisfactorily linked to the substances known as "the cream" and "the clear".
it is not known what the substances used by sheffield actually were.
it is not known what the substances used by bonds actually were.
bonds claimed that he used legal substances only.



West Coast,

This response right here clearly shows that you are most comfortable skating that this line between "factual evidence" and "logic." Sheffield admitted what it was he took. He said that he asked for the same stuff that Bonds was getting. When Shef found out what it was, be became upset, or something like that.

This changing the swing thing, is just another diversion attempt. And a weak one. His swing did change because his approach changed. His approach changed because he body type changed. At a VERY OLD age, his hand speed IMPROVED enough to become a dead pull hitter. To crowd the plate and still have confidence of getting around on any speed of fastball. This is not natural.

West Coast, you understand natural decline don't you. Killer year round workout programs and strict diets will slow this decline, but nobody should have such huge increased production. I actually think that while 2001 was happening, that Bonds didn't want to hit that many homers. Every homerun he hit, he knew would add to the speculation, to the spotlight, and to more questions. I'm just saying that I think he'd rather have only hit 45 or 50 dingers. Cause with 73, he not only visually indicted himself from roids, but he statistically did as well. And that surly attitude to hide the guilt...hmm.

Please do not split this up into single gray sentences and reply to each one. Just answer why you have to take every little thing to the extreme side of innocense, instead of proving that you have the ability to put 2 and 2 together. And why would you put it past Bonds. What about that man makes you think he wouldn't want to gain an edge; especially after seeing '98.

[west coast orange and black]

Sultan_1895-1948: Sheffield admitted what it was he took. He said that he asked for the same stuff that Bonds was getting.
according to the feds, there was no way that sheffield could have known, or actually knew, the ingredients of the balco substances that he used. sheffield admitted to using substances provided by balco, but he did not know what the substances were.


When Shef found out what it was, be became upset, or something like that.
when sheffield was told wht the substances might have been he became angry.


I actually think that while 2001 was happening, that Bonds didn't want to hit that many homers...
very funny stuff...


Every homerun he hit, he knew would add to the speculation, to the spotlight...
because according to you, bonds craves the spotlight more than anything, and that is what started his pursuit of banned substance abuse.


Please do not split this up into single gray sentences and reply to each one.
i found that it is the best way for me to counter-point some of your points.
much of what you post re bonds is simply your own opinion, not fact, as you have said. there are so many inaccuracies in your posts that i find it best to debunk them line by line.


Just answer why you have to take every little thing to the extreme side of innocense, instead of proving that you have the ability to put 2 and 2 together.
there is no extreme side of innocence, sultan. it is either present or not. you continually rely on the idea that either i do not possess common sense, or that i do not use it; that my position is unreasonable. yet you have failed to demonstrate what, exactly, about my posts that you find unreasonable.


And why would you put it past Bonds.
my position and yours are not polar. yours is "bonds used", and mine is "i do not know if bonds used".
i can be swayed to either side, but have not heard any valid, reasonable argument from either side to do so.

i do not and have not ever "put it past bonds" to have used.
i have posted what effect on me that that news would have.

[Dravecky43]

I agree, WCOB, there has been no definite proof from either side on the question of whether or not Barry Bonds used performance enhancing drugs.

It seems one of the main exhibits produced by the people that believe he did use the drugs are his statistics, specifically the Home Run numbers. Yes, from 2000 to 2004 he averaged an astounding 8.22 AB/HR (2,122 AB, 258 HR). And from 1993 (first year with SF) until 1999 he had 269 HR in 3,392 AB, or 12.61 AB/HR. Pretty damning evidence to some. There's only one problem with those stats: That horrible ballpark he played in from 1993 to 1999. I don't know exactly how much it did, but there's no question that the swirling winds at the Stick took many a HR away from probably every player that hit there. How many times have you heard, "How many HRs would Willie Mays, McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, etc. have if they didn't play at Candlestick?"

To give you an idea, if you translate his AB/HR from his PBP days to the Candlestick AB numbers, he would have almost 150 more HR than he actually does. That means almost 860.

Just something to think about.

[donzblock]

If you are going to take the position that Bonds is a wronged man, then your position must be testable for it to be rational. For your position to be testable, you should be able to answer this question: "What would convince me that Barry Bonds did take steroids?" If your answer is "Nothing," then your position is not testable and you are not being rational. In effect, you are expressing faith in Bonds, and faith is not the result of reason. Similarly, the fans who oppose Bonds should be able to answer this question: "What will convince me that Bonds is innocent?" If the answer is "Nothing," then that position is not testable either. If each side can answer these questions with specifics that are testable, then the conversation can continue civilly, and both sides might learn something.

Also, if the purpose of this thread is to learn something about Barry Bonds, then it should not exclude fans who dislike Barry Bonds. It should not exclude anybody. Why do you even bother? I asume you bother because it annoys you as Giant fans when Barry Bonds is attacked, but if you wish to defend him, then you have to deal with the opposing views.

[KHenry14]

The problem is Donz that a lot of the Anti-Barry people think he's used for the wrong reason...mostly because they dislike him as a person and by extrapolation he's then a user. Or because of his hat size or the number he wears :D . Sure, I understand there is more to it than that, but it starts with how people perceive Barry. For example, Roger Clemens is beloved in Baseball, so how come nobody is mentioning about how he's doing this well at his advanced age that no one else has ever done? Why does he skate on the PED issue? Only reason I can think of is that Roger is well liked. And could we say the same of A-Rod?

Most Giants fans I know take the same stance, we don't know what Barry's done or not done. I can be convinced of Barry's usage of PED's, but there better something more substantial than his hat size.

KH14

[donzblock]

What would convince you that Barry has used?

[west coast orange and black]

re #57

this thread has not and does not exclude anyone. giantsalltheway's initial question has nothing to do with exclusion; it has to do with the notion of "why bother".

no reasonable person can rightly claim that the giants forum has excluded opposing views.

[west coast orange and black]

re #59

many/most of those who state matter-of-factly that bonds have depended upon various types of evidence and resources. some of the evidence and reasons offered have been flat-out debunked, while some of what remains is outrageously ridiculous.

there has been, however, anecdotal evidence that can lead one to believe that bonds used. but it seems to me that so far, a conclusion of "bonds used" occurs only when someone would reach that same conclusion even without discovering any of such evidence or information.

what would make me believe that bonds used is information/evidence that would lead any reasonable person, based on the information/evidence presented, to conclude that bonds used.

so, yeah, a positive test would do it quite nicely, certainly.
but so would a presentation of information/evidence that solidly refutes reasonable information/evidence that is controvertible.

so far, i simply have not seen it.

[donzblock]

TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF:

I don't know about you guys, but it annoys me so much to see all of the Barry-haters badmouthing him and not calming down and listening to reason (at least that's the way I see it). Do any of you have any suggestions for dealing with those posts? Maybe try to ignore them or something?
When someone begins a thread with "TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF," that person is trying to exclude quite a few people, specifically the people he is complaining about. However, the pro-Bonds people will be able to make a stronger argument if they do so in an open forum, and fortunately this forum has been open.

The thread starter's intention bothered me; the reality has been freedom of speech. A bad moderator would have excluded certain posts on the grounds that they came from non-Giants fans. Obviously, that has not been the case here, and I'm not complaining.

[donzblock]

re #59

many/most of those who state matter-of-factly that bonds have depended upon various types of evidence and resources. some of the evidence and reasons offered have been flat-out debunked, while some of what remains is outrageously ridiculous.

there has been, however, anecdotal evidence that can lead one to believe that bonds used. but it seems to me that so far, a conclusion of "bonds used" occurs only when someone would reach that same conclusion even without discovering any of such evidence or information.

what would make me believe that bonds used is information/evidence that would lead any reasonable person, based on the information/evidence presented, to conclude that bonds used.

so, yeah, a positive test would do it quite nicely, certainly.
but so would a presentation of information/evidence that solidly refutes reasonable information/evidence that is controvertible.

so far, i simply have not seen it.
Fair enough: anecdotal evidence should be discarded. Pictures of young Bonds and old Bonds are another matter. These pictures do not constitute proof that Bonds used, but they do explain why so many baseball fans distrust Barry Bonds. The pictures should launch an investigation, but it is the findings of the investigation, not the pictures, that will determine if Bonds used.

I think we all agree that the results of drug tests would be important, perhaps conclusive, but would other legitimate evidence take the form of lie detector tests, eye witness accounts, videotapes, receipts signed by Barry Bonds, records of Bonds working out regularly, medical data?

What about baseball stats that are clearly anomalous?

How would you respond to circumstantial evidence if there were tons of it?

[sandlot]

I thought I made it clear that I didn't necessarily think the swing change by itself was the reason for the increase in numbers. But I do think it was part of the equation, maybe more of an element than you do. But my point was that you didn't see any reason for the increase other than PED's, and I gave you two reasons. Please don't misunderstand my intention in this post. I am not saying that there are no reasons for his production increase except PEDs. I have argued long and loud (see #8) that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to everyone, including Bonds. What I am trying to do is to condense the points that have been made by others in the course of the Bonds-steroids debate and pull them into a single reference item. If we can agree on the content, even though we might disagree on any inferences to be drawn, then perhaps the discussion can move forward with more coherence and less repetition. I agree to add "redesigning his swing and improved plate discipline" to the list. They could arguably fall under "work ethic," but spelling it out is better. Later on, I'll incorporate all the suggestions, renumber, etc. and post it again. Futher suggestions welcomed. Many thanks to all.

[west coast orange and black]

giantsalltheway directed his message to giants fans only, but responses are not exclusive to giants fans only.

as long as posts are giants baseball-related, conform to bb-f rules and are easily readable, bb-f members are welcome to come join our reindeer games.

now, it is widely understood and accepted that in team fora, the moderators do not have to take as much guff as in the non-team fora when faced with members who put down or attack a particular team or its fans.

so far, members have been mostly respectful.
when they are not, though, the post is edited or deleted, depending on the severity of the language.

[west coast orange and black]

i think that images of "old bonds" and "new bonds" do not warrant any investigation. it is well-documented that incredible gains have been achieved my athletes who are placed on workouts that are new to them.

legitimate evidence such as polygraph results, eye witness accounts from credible sources, authenticated videotapes and audiotapes, and records and receipts signed by bonds for illegal actions or contraband could eventually doom bonds.
but so far...

re bonds working out and existing medical data:
bonds takes 2 1/2 - 3 months off after the season, then hits the bricks. his regimen, apparently, is very tough, but bonds is an extremely dedicated person and makes great sacrifices and endures much pain to meet his established goals.

i do not understand what medical data has to do with the question of whether bonds used. labs and clinics research to discover what an athlete's peak performance could be, and are also involved in the research and development of a training program so that that athlete can attain the peak performance goals.

these athletes are tested and re-tested perhaps thousands of times during the development of the training program, and then are closely monitored during the workouts to see if thet are on the right track.

it is reasonable that the mountain of documents -- research information, test results, ongoing monitoring of the athlete -- would exist. it is also reasonable that the mountain would include information both familiar and unfamiliar to laypersons. cutting edge science has a language all its own.

if the feds came across info that would lead them to believe that bonds used, i hope and expect that they would follow wherever the investigation would lead.

re anomolous baseball stats: such as?

re circumstantial evidence:
the quantity does not matter to me, as it is all about the quality.

re quality circumstantial evidence:
it could reach a point where a resonable person would conclude that bonds used. but so far...

[Dravecky43]

When someone begins a thread with "TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF," that person is trying to exclude quite a few people, specifically the people he is complaining about. However, the pro-Bonds people will be able to make a stronger argument if they do so in an open forum, and fortunately this forum has been open.

The thread starter's intention bothered me; the reality has been freedom of speech. A bad moderator would have excluded certain posts on the grounds that they came from non-Giants fans. Obviously, that has not been the case here, and I'm not complaining.
I knew you would quote that. My message was for Giants' fans alone because I wanted responses from people that I felt were in the same situation as me. This thread has evolved so far from my original intention. I was happy with the answers after a few posts, but when other things entered into the discussion I knew that other posters would enter their thoughts.

My intention bothered you? Can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-d?

[west coast orange and black]

good idea to condense the points of argument, sandlot.

two things: the silly and the debunked oughtta be omitted.

(4) has no merit as an argument -- all athletes use supplements;
(7) according to the feds, bonds did not supply sheffield with balco substances; whatever was given to sheffield was out of bonds' control;
(8) is an opinion that guilty or innocent persons alike may have;
(10) the supposed testimony means little unless it contains damning information, and it does not;
(11) the statements might liken bonds to an idiot, but plain idiocy and substance user are unrelated;
(12) res ipsa loquitur.

on the flip side:
(4) pretty much anyone could be a steroid user.

get to work, sandlot. :waving

[donzblock]

I knew you would quote that. My message was for Giants' fans alone because I wanted responses from people that I felt were in the same situation as me. This thread has evolved so far from my original intention. I was happy with the answers after a few posts, but when other things entered into the discussion I knew that other would enter their thoughts.

My intention bothered you? Can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-d?
What are the "other things" that you refer to, and what does "I knew that the other would enter their thoughts" mean?

Regarding "paranoid," if you read a chapter on paranoia in a textbook, I think you will discover that it is a state of mind that goes far beyond being bothered. Are you trying to be informative or insulting?

[west coast orange and black]

no need for a conversation about the definition of "paranoid" here.

donzblock and giantsalltheway, please stick to giants baseball-related conversation.

thanx.

[donzblock]

I knew you would quote that. My message was for Giants' fans alone because I wanted responses from people that I felt were in the same situation as me. This thread has evolved so far from my original intention. I was happy with the answers after a few posts, but when other things entered into the discussion I knew that other would enter their thoughts.
What are these "other things" that "entered into the discussion," and what does "I knew that other would enter their thoughts" mean?

[west coast orange and black]

donzblok, please take it up with giantsalltheway by using p.m.; additional non-giants news might be deleted.
i am not saying that it will, but that it might.

i am all for free speech, but "you can't yell 'blank the giants!'* in a crowded giants theatre", so to speak.

there's gotta be a line, and the line in this here giants forum is "giants-related".

................................
*discussion in the mod forum found it acceptable that a team moderators can be more "strict" re content in their own forum than in non-team fora.

[Elvis]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but if i were Bonds (assuming I never took steroids) and had so much to lose by not being able to clear the doubts, and thereby tarnishing an incredible legacy, I would take not one, but several polygraph tests, from several different police agencies and make the results public. I mean, if I were innocent I sure as hell would do EVERYTHING to prove it.

[west coast orange and black]

fair enough, elvis.
but many people are not interested in "proving innocence" even when charged with a crime, as the burden falls onto the people/the state.

this might be bonds' position. i dunno.

[wogdoggy]

ELVIS LIVES.Yah barry clear your name,take the poly.Or just put a big ASTERIKS by his statistics.:laugh

[donzblock]

donzblok, please take it up with giantsalltheway by using p.m.; additional non-giants news might be deleted.
i am not saying that it will, but that it might.

i am all for free speech, but "you can't yell 'blank the giants!'* in a crowded giants theatre", so to speak.
Nobody is yelling "Blank the Giants" in a crowded theater. I assumed that giantsalltheway's terms referred to the topic of this thread, and since I did not understand what his words meant, I asked him to define them so that I could respond properly. Since my intention was to respond to the topic of the thread, my response would have been "Giants-related."

What line did you imagine I was crossing?

[west coast orange and black]

^^ post 70: "no need for a conversation about the definition of "paranoid" here."

you were not in the process of crossing, donzblok.
but if you had crossed then that would be another matter.

[KingSwisher]

re #57

this thread has not and does not exclude anyone. giantsalltheway's initial question has nothing to do with exclusion; it has to do with the notion of "why bother".

no reasonable person can rightly claim that the giants forum has excluded opposing views.

I guess you can't say that anymore.

[west coast orange and black]

while waiting for sandlot's condensed pros and cons of the did he/didn't he argument, does anyone have other points to make?

it may be that all salient points have already been voiced, but you never know.

[KHenry14]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but if i were Bonds (assuming I never took steroids) and had so much to lose by not being able to clear the doubts, and thereby tarnishing an incredible legacy, I would take not one, but several polygraph tests, from several different police agencies and make the results public. I mean, if I were innocent I sure as hell would do EVERYTHING to prove it.

Also, the players union would throw a fit if any player took a polygraph.

[Dravecky43]

Does anyone have any comments on my thoughts about the parks affecting Barry's stats (post 56)? Or was it discussed before and I was just restating it?

[sandlot]

Does anyone have any comments on my thoughts about the parks affecting Barry's stats (post 56)? Or was it discussed before and I was just restating it?If I understand your point, it is that the statistics seeming to show that Bonds has experienced a late-career surge are, in fact, misleading, because his output totals during earlier years were suppressed by the hitter-unfriendly park he was playing in, and that had he played elsewhere, his numbers would actually be higher than they are. Therefor, there is an alternative explanation to PEDs usage for the otherwise anomolous late-life performance levels, and adjustment for park proves this. Have I got that right? If so, I'll condense it somehow and add it in when I rework this list, probably over the weekend.

[Dravecky43]

If I understand your point, it is that the statistics seeming to show that Bonds has experienced a late-career surge are, in fact, misleading, because his output totals during earlier years were suppressed by the hitter-unfriendly park he was playing in, and that had he played elsewhere, his numbers would actually be higher than they are. Therefor, there is an alternative explanation to PEDs usage for the otherwise anomolous late-life performance levels, and adjustment for park proves this. Have I got that right? If so, I'll condense it somehow and add it in when I rework this list, probably over the weekend.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I don't think it was the only reason he improved at the turn of the millenium, but I think that with the reworked swing is pretty much a good argument.

[west coast orange and black]

re #56:

i readily go along with your idea that candlestick affected everyone who played there, giantsalltheway. one of the smartest baseball persons ever, willie mays, has commented many times on the adverse weather conditions and what he feels were the consequences.

and bonds' numbers speak to such:
candlestick: 1993 through 1999: 269 hr / 3,392 ab; 12.61 ab/hr

pac bell: 2000 through 2004: 258 hr / 2,122 ab; 8.22 ab/hr

(pac bell: 2005: 5 hr / 42 ab; 8.4 ab / hr)

but i think that your guess of 860 home runs for bonds is too high.
if bonds had made the inroads and changes to his attitude, approach, swing and training sooner, his candlestick numbers would be healthily improved, yeah. it's just that 860 is, uh, too healthy, i think.

you're 150 "lost" homeruns at the stick comes to 26 per season.
i'm thinking that the "lost" total is closer to half that, for a would-be current total of 780.

our reasoning is the same, our beliefs of the affects are not.

[ed hardiman]

In order to accept Bonds never took steroids at a minimum you should have logical answers to the following questions.

Is his plate discipline, eyesight, bat speed etc. really greater than those possessed by Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Aaron or countless other great HOF hitters?

If conditioning so dramatically reverses the effects of advancing age why hasn't any previous player in the history of organized baseball proved this theory with results as anomalous as Bonds?

What exactly is the "hit more home runs as you get older" exercise?

If Candlestick suppressed his HR's there should be a reasonable seasonal constant for all HR's hit in parks other than Candlestick.
Such a number should be reasonably consistent throughout his career.
Is this so?

[KHenry14]

In order to accept Bonds never took steroids at a minimum you should have logical answers to the following questions.

Is his plate discipline, eyesight, bat speed etc. really greater than those possessed by Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Aaron or countless other great HOF hitters?

If conditioning so dramatically reverses the effects of advancing age why hasn't any previous player in the history of organized baseball proved this theory with results as anomalous as Bonds?

What exactly is the "hit more home runs as you get older" exercise?

If Candlestick suppressed his HR's there should be a reasonable seasonal constant for all HR's hit in parks other than Candlestick.
Such a number should be reasonably consistent throughout his career.
Is this so?

Here's the thing Ed, he really does have the best plate discipline, the best batting eye since Ted Williams, and a great power swing, so much so that he does rank with the best who ever played. Even most Barry haters admit that much.

And his conditioning is obviously better than almost all of the greatest players who ever played. That's pretty much a function of the time he plays in, as Mays, Aaron etc. didn't think much about it.

And the 'Stick was far more of a deterent to right handed hitters, as the wind blew most strongly to right center there.

Again, i'm not saying he didn't use, but too many people look at him immediately and say "PED's" despite a lot of factual evidence that proves what a great hitter he actually is. Could PED's have accentuated what he did? Maybe, but the facts are he also worked very hard at making himself better, and that didn't have anything to do with PED's.

KH14

[ed hardiman]

Here's the thing Ed, he really does have the best plate discipline, the best batting eye since Ted Williams, and a great power swing, so much so that he does rank with the best who ever played. Even most Barry haters admit that much.
And his conditioning is obviously better than almost all of the greatest players who ever played. That's pretty much a function of the time he plays in, as Mays, Aaron etc. didn't think much about it.
And the 'Stick was far more of a deterent to right handed hitters, as the wind blew most strongly to right center there.
Again, i'm not saying he didn't use, but too many people look at him immediately and say "PED's" despite a lot of factual evidence that proves what a great hitter he actually is. Could PED's have accentuated what he did? Maybe, but the facts are he also worked very hard at making himself better, and that didn't have anything to do with PED's.
KH14
I don't dispute his skills but haven't seen data that supports a "lone Candlestick" explanation or accept the fact he alone was in peak condition among HOF players.
Isn't it fair to say records belonging to those whose ends justified their means are expedient not admirable?

[west coast orange and black]

1. the argument goes that bonds improved his own abilities. the question of whether bonds could advance his plate discipline, eyesight, bat speed, etc., relies on bonds alone.

2. no names come to mind when considering the baseball players who have enjoyed the same conditioning advantages as bonds has. it's apples and oranges.
also, superior conditioning can slow down age effects, not reverse 'em.

3. uh, what are you talking about?

4. why would a constant be expected in a player's performance?
i do not understand this, ed.

[west coast orange and black]

re peak condition: no two bodies are identical. different people have different peaks.

because clinical research and information and training methods are so much better than before, especially when considering the eras before computers, it is reasonable to think that players of today have incredible physical advantages over past players. and it is also reasonable to think that some of today's players enjoy advantages over their peers.

[ed hardiman]

1. the argument goes that bonds improved his own abilities. the question of whether bonds could advance his plate discipline, eyesight, bat speed, etc., relies on bonds alone.

2. no names come to mind when considering the baseball players who have enjoyed the same conditioning advantages as bonds has. it's apples and oranges.
also, superior conditioning can slow down age effects, not reverse 'em.

3. uh, what are you talking about?

4. why would a constant be expected in a player's performance?
i do not understand this, ed.

2nd post:
re peak condition: no two bodies are identical. different people have different peaks.
because clinical research and information and training methods are so much better than before, especially when considering the eras before computers, it is reasonable to think that players of today have incredible physical advantages over past players. and it is also reasonable to think that some of today's players enjoy advantages over their peers.

1. First let me agree with your first observation yet it is oft repeated as a unique insight and practice only followed by Bonds by his defenders. There is not one practicable way of proving he alone works out to achieve a unique baseball physiology.

2. Since a player's conditioning by era is relative I do not accept as rational Bonds has any egregious advantage over players of his era. You rightly observe exercise has extended careers it has not demonstrated radical improvement.
The notion specific applied conditioning is a radical departure invented by Bonds for his times calls for a complete ignorance of Ty Cobb's legendary conditioning regimen begun prior to 1905, Steve Carlton's and Mike Marshall's in the 70's to name just three.

3. It simply points out the fallacy of using exercise as a reasonable explanation. I'd sooner accept the theory expansion has incredibly diluted pitching or even lowering the mounds. But these explanations require a concurrent acceleration across the board for all hitters.

4. To accept Candlestick Park as the reason for his lack of HR production his road % of HR's should be comparable with what he hits now. But there's an easier way to express it:
HR totals
1986-1992 (age 21-27 Pittsburgh Pirates)
176 HR's, 29 per.
1993-1999 (age 28-34 SF Giants Candlestick)
269 HR's, 44 per.
2000-2005 (age 35-40 SF Giants Pac Bell)
268 HR's, 53 per.
Consequently I don't think Candlestick is the sole reason though I have heard the 'stick kept Willie Mays' HR numbers down..
From 1986-1999 Bonds hit 40+ HR's 3 times.
From 2000-2005 he's hit 40+ 4 times and 70+ once.
It just doesn't add up to.

2nd post. On closer examination Bonds HR production from 28-35 follows the same arc Babe Ruth's did. Then it literally flies off the charts. If I accept training prolonged his career then why is he hitting more rather than the same HR's? Why has his slugging % increased?
But choosing to train with the guy who's ground zero for untracable PED's over the last decade is hardly the choice I'd make if I were Bonds.
As for advantages of training equalling better baseball I'll happily take Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, Foxx, Hornsby, Clemente, Dimaggio, Williams, Mays, Rose, Schmidt and Aaron over any "advantaged" athlete playing today in a game of pickup baseball.
I would also pick current Phillies lifetime minor league wunderkind 2nd sacker Buzz Hanahan because the game of baseball needs more players named Buzz.
I guess my disappointment would be greater if he chose the path of denial travelled by Pete Rose rather than give fans a chance to put a mistake if made into perspective and close the book on it. If he's truly innocent why not insist on being tested as he smacks the catcrap out of the ball? Either way he needs to address a situation that will not go away simply because he ignores it. None of which is anti-SF Giant's or anti-Bonds I just think baseball has turned a blind eye to both stimulants and PED's to the detriment of the game.

[wogdoggy]

Watch for sharply lower Bond's production this year as his head shrinks from lack of steroids.:laugh

[west coast orange and black]

wogdoggy, when do you believe that bonds stopped steroid use?
an approximate date will be good.

[bondsgirrrl]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but if i were Bonds (assuming I never took steroids) and had so much to lose by not being able to clear the doubts, I dont think he has anything to lose because of peoples doubts. He would ONLY have something to lose IF he tested positive. No such test exists.

[bondsgirrrl]

ELVIS LIVES.Yah barry clear your name,take the poly.Or just put a big ASTERIKS by his statistics.:laugh
No asterisk will be applied. Even IF he were to test positive now for roids. They have to have proof of the past years, and they dont.

[bondsgirrrl]

Watch for sharply lower Bond's production this year as his head shrinks from lack of steroids.:laugh
Are you trying to contribute a good baseball post here? IF so I am missing it. please tell me how this is productive.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

i think that images of "old bonds" and "new bonds" do not warrant any investigation. it is well-documented that incredible gains have been achieved my athletes who are placed on workouts that are new to them.

legitimate evidence such as polygraph results, eye witness accounts from credible sources, authenticated videotapes and audiotapes, and records and receipts signed by bonds for illegal actions or contraband could eventually doom bonds.
but so far...

re bonds working out and existing medical data:
bonds takes 2 1/2 - 3 months off after the season, then hits the bricks. his regimen, apparently, is very tough, but bonds is an extremely dedicated person and makes great sacrifices and endures much pain to meet his established goals.

i do not understand what medical data has to do with the question of whether bonds used. labs and clinics research to discover what an athlete's peak performance could be, and are also involved in the research and development of a training program so that that athlete can attain the peak performance goals.

these athletes are tested and re-tested perhaps thousands of times during the development of the training program, and then are closely monitored during the workouts to see if thet are on the right track.

it is reasonable that the mountain of documents -- research information, test results, ongoing monitoring of the athlete -- would exist. it is also reasonable that the mountain would include information both familiar and unfamiliar to laypersons. cutting edge science has a language all its own.

if the feds came across info that would lead them to believe that bonds used, i hope and expect that they would follow wherever the investigation would lead.

re anomolous baseball stats: such as?

re circumstantial evidence:
the quantity does not matter to me, as it is all about the quality.

re quality circumstantial evidence:
it could reach a point where a resonable person would conclude that bonds used. but so far...

West Coast, I respect that your a Barry fan, I really do. But seriously, when you're typing that, don't you see how skewed and slanted these retorts are? They are completely apolagetic, and sympathetic to Bonds' cause.

If we all had come from another country...if we had never heard of Bonds, but still loved baseball and it's history... would we all still have different views? We should at least imagine stepping back and having an open mind. Imagine how similar our feelings would be then.

[west coast orange and black]

i do not see my take on the issue as skewed and slanted, sultan.
i do not see it as being sympathetic to bonds.
when dealing with the question of steroids in baseball, and specifically the question of steroids and bonds, i have pretty much allowed the facts to speak for themselves.

some of the reasons offered by those who state matter-of-factly that bonds used is flat-out nonsense. and some of their evidence has been thoroughly debunked. however, because some of what remains could lead someone to reasonably believe that bonds used, i continue to gather facts about the issue.

it is precisely because i have an open mind that i continue to search for the information that might one day have me conclude "bonds used".

from what i have read on this board, i have done a whole lot more gathering than most who have already flatly declared bonds' guilt or innocence... but are unable to explain their conclusions in a reasonable manner.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

i do not see my take on the issue as skewed and slanted, sultan.
i do not see it as being sympathetic to bonds.
when dealing with the question of steroids in baseball, and specifically the question of steroids and bonds, i have pretty much allowed the facts to speak for themselves.



In this situation, there will never be absolute "proof." We need to understand the issue and why we will never have complete proof. So knowing that, where do we go from there? Let's put 2 and 2 together here. Why dismiss mountains of circumstantial evidence, in favor of still hiding behind the "there's no proof" bunker. Peekaboo, I see you; come out from the bunker west coast. It's ok. Things feel much better in the light where reality reigns supreme. :D

[west coast orange and black]

as definitively as you state that bonds used, you state that there will never be absolute "proof."
why is that, sultan? you would not take bonds testing positive as proof? nor an indictment and guilty verdict?

much of your *proof* has been shown to be pure bunk, some of it has been suredly debunked, and some of what remains has been fitted to only apply to bonds, not as stand-alone information.

but because true circumstantial evidence does remains, there is the chance that bonds used. so far, the referees have it 70-50, 70-48, 70-48 through 8. so, keep slingin' it, sultan. maybe a knockout punch'll save you.

[wogdoggy]

Are you trying to contribute a good baseball post here? IF so I am missing it. please tell me how this is productive.

the statement pretty much explains itself,look for sharply lower production from Bonds this year as the table levels itself.barry will no longer be able to juice as scrutiny becomes tighter and tighter.No ROIDS no 60hrs.sit back relax and watch.lol

[Sultan_1895-1948]

as definitively as you state that bonds used, you state that there will never be absolute "proof."
why is that, sultan? you would not take bonds testing positive as proof? nor an indictment and guilty verdict?

much of your *proof* has been shown to be pure bunk, some of it has been suredly debunked, and some of what remains has been fitted to only apply to bonds, not as stand-alone information.

but because true circumstantial evidence does remains, there is the chance that bonds used. so far, the referees have it 70-50, 70-48, 70-48 through 8. so, keep slingin' it, sultan. maybe a knockout punch'll save you.

I stated that my opinion is that he used based on MOUNTAINS of circumstantial evidence. Evidence that I've used my brain to process, and come to a logical conclusion. There WILL BE NO absolute proof, short of him admitting it because MLB does not currently test for HGH, and the cow is out of the barn on years past. Balco dished stuff out to many other athletes in many other sports, with full knowledge that they had masking agents available, or that it wasn't even being tested for. That's why they pay the big bucks to ensure discretion. You're underestimating Bonds connections. You think he crossed over into Mexico on foot like thousands of teenages to get god knows what? Ummm no. With that much on the line, he made sure he'd never be caught.

[KHenry14]

With that much on the line, he made sure he'd never be caught.

Funny thing Sultan, you'd have thought that Raffy felt the same wouldn't you?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Funny thing Sultan, you'd have thought that Raffy felt the same wouldn't you?

If you think being a below borderline HOFer is "a lot on the line," then sure.

Does anyone have a breakdown of how much money Bonds spends per year on personal trainer, supplements, equipment, etc... From his 20 mil per year, ya gotta think it's a large chunk. Too bad they don't make his Balco bill public.

[KHenry14]

If you think being a below borderline HOFer is "a lot on the line," then sure.


Uh, before the finger pointing at Congress and the subsequent positive test, Raffy was a lock for the Hall. 3000 hits, 500+ HR's is a lock. So yeah, he had a lot on the line and a lot to lose. And he lost. You'd think he'd have known better.

KH14

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Uh, before the finger pointing at Congress and the subsequent positive test, Raffy was a lock for the Hall. 3000 hits, 500+ HR's is a lock. So yeah, he had a lot on the line and a lot to lose. And he lost. You'd think he'd have known better.

KH14

That's an entirely new discussion, but I've heard very good arguments why he wouldn't have been. These "club" numbers can be very misleading if we don't look deeper. Imo, he was borderline at best before the "let me make this clear..the references to me, in Mr. Canseco's book, are completely false. I don't know how to say it any more clearly..blah blah; fingerpoint, blah blah"

[ed hardiman]

Isn't the real issue whether or not the HOF decides to completely devalue itself by enshrining chemical era anomalies?

Bonds, for better or worse, by simple association alone has put himself in an untenable position if the HOF decides its existence & relativity depends not only on the quality of the product it offers but also on the unquestionable purity of achievement.

There's ample precedent in the cases of Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose to indicate the HOF can and will exclude those who might ultimately cloud the legacy they maintain.

Does this mean Bonds is guilty as charged?
Certainly not.
Does this mean he can ignore the allegations and get into the HOF?
I think that issue has yet to be decided.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The problem is, how far do they go back for the "known" users, and with no testing, where's the cutoff line? I think their attitude is to just try and go from here, and do the best they can. Which isn't good at all without HGH being tested for, and with newer and better things being created all the time.
They need some sort of special forces task unit to infiltrate the lab scene. A mole or two on the inside who can give baseball or whoever a heads up on things.

All the guys that will have clouds will get in regardless of how much steroids helped them. But it's up to the general public and knowledgable baseball men to put players' careers into perspective with the era and their steroid use. We don't need an asterisk for 61, because we know the deal. Just like we'll know the deal about these guys.

I care that Bonds is a [jerk] on a certain level, but it's not that big of a deal. He is what he is. It's the position he's in, how he's come to be in that position, and what his actions will mean generations down the line that bothers me. If it were Sosa, or Mac, or Giambi, or Sheffield, or Juan Gonzalez, or anyone, I'd feel the same. That's how I know that Bonds' personality isn't the main issue with me.

He's made his own bed though. When he goes into the HOF, if Bonds is lucky enough to have a special room dedicated to him, there will be whispers, and there will be the constant mention of "cheating," of "steroids," and "balco." That is the legacy he's chosen, and is perhaps the next best thing to having cream bottles, needles, a size 9 hat, and his pre-2000 stats posted inside the casing.

[Androctus]

That is the legacy he's chosen, and is perhaps the next best thing to having cream bottles, needles, a size 9 hat, and his pre-2000 stats posted inside the casing.After launching is own reality TV Show its rumored Bonds will be selling advertising space on that huge dome of his.

[west coast orange and black]

to your original question, giantsalltheway, of what to do with posts such as the one above:

remind them that it is considered very bad form to trash on another team's forum.

[Dravecky43]

Hey, you losers with nothing to do but to bash the great Barry Bonds!:D Yeah, I'm speaking to you!! It's very bad form to talk trash on another team's forum!!! And don't forget that!!! Because I'll...I'll...

[west coast orange and black]

dude. :laugh :laugh

[Androctus]

to your original question, giantsalltheway, of what to do with posts such as the one above:

remind them that it is considered very bad form to trash on another team's forum.Perhaps - but how can you be sure I'm not a huge Giants fan, and in here trashing my own team?:D

I'm sorry. I'll go away now.

[west coast orange and black]

no way for me to be sure about you, specificly, androctus. but by the look of your posts in the phillies forum you are either a phillies fan or a giants fan who's lost his compass.

no need to go away. but it is bad form to go bombs-away on other teams on their home turf.

[Androctus]

no way for me to be sure about you, specificly, androctus. but by the look of your posts in the phillies forum you are either a phillies fan or a giants fan who's lost his compass.That is purely circumstantial evidence and will never hold up in any forum of law. And thers no such thing as a Philly fan. We watch with the same intent and amusement a dog watches his master try to put up a satellite dish by himself, knowing he's going to fall off the roof, but are powerless to help him...

no need to go away. but it is bad form to go bombs-away on other teams on their home turf.You'll have to forgive me, because coming from the Philly forum the opposite is true. We have a hard time when a stranger walks in and starts trumpeting the brilliance of our team and most specifically our management.

So anyway for you Giants die hards whats the word on the reality show? Would any of you honestly have any interest whatsoever in watching such a thing?

[west coast orange and black]

it would hold up in this giant forum of law. :p

no reason to hafta rely on a filtered *reality show* when the unfiltered info is available elsewhere.

[west coast orange and black]

androctus: We have a hard time when a stranger walks in and starts trumpeting the brilliance of our team and most specifically our management.

this has actually happened?

[KHenry14]

What I didn't know WCOB was that the Phillies actually had someone in management of the team! :laugh

KH14

[Androctus]

androctus: We have a hard time when a stranger walks in and starts trumpeting the brilliance of our team and most specifically our management.

this has actually happened?Oh sure. Anybody want to take Bobby Abreu off our hands?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Has the thread question been answered yet?

[Dravecky43]

Has the thread question been answered yet?
Yes, what I asked was answered in the first few responses. It has just carried on and on and on and, well, etc.