Will your change your perspective on Bonds if he had a monster season in 2006?

[GiambiJuice]

We have to expect a drop-off in Barry's performance regardless of whether or not he was a steroid user during his 2001-2004 seasons. He will turn 42 around the all-star break and he's coming off a season in which he only played 14 games.

Say he has another outstanding season in 2006: He bats .300, 30-35 HR .450 OBP, and .600 SLG. I would consider this a truly outstanding season given Barry's age and recent down-time.

Would your perception/opinion of him change at all knowing that he accomplished this without any PEDs?

I know many people want to throw his recent stats out the window or put and asterik next to it. In my opinion , If he has another great season all that talk should be put to rest.

What do you think?

[KCGHOST]

Not in the least. He is what he is.

[Bronxbommers]

Hey, I love Barry Bonds. Even though I hate what he did, you can't escape the fact that, even before he juiced up and he weighed like 150 pounds, he was one of the best players ever. I come from the school of thought that steroids can't help you hit a baseball. They can help you hit it farther, but he posseses the amazing eye-hand coordination to be the best hitter ever, with or without steroids.

[BoweryBoys]

Bonds putting up "normally" great numbers this year at age 41-42 would not prove anything except what has always been known, that even without possible steroid use he was a great hitter. (IF) Bonds took steroids as suspected for a number of years he did so mainly for the drug's ability to help him recouperate in order to sustain the ability to remain highly productive on a consistent basis for longer then would otherwise be normal. As Bonds also would have used the drug to help him bulk up and increase his strength (power), there is no way to ever be certain about the drugs residual effects and its ability to help him maintain that power even when no longer using the drug due to the fact that he still has the huge muscles (strength) he MAY have gained through the long time use of the drug.

A better way to tell is how often he is able to play and at what consistent level. He was pretty well broken down last season. IF he used steroids, the biggest benefit he would have received from them all that time is the ability to recouperate from the wear and tear much better and stay at such a high level more consistently at his age then without them.

[BoweryBoys]

With Bonds I do not think that a .300 35 .450 .600 season is going to quiet anyone's suspicions. With Bonds the problem people have is not with the high level of his performance throughout most of his career. The problem is with the increased level of performance at an advanced age and the reasons behind it. The problem is for example the 49 to 73. If Bonds were to be able to play enough games this season and put up numbers such as above, it will not disprove nor stop the suspicion that his possible long-time steroid use is behind the numbers. On the contrary, it may just add fuel to the fire that if not for long-time steroid use and the residual benefits, he would in no way put up such numbers at 42.

[Dontworry]

Maybe, Maybe not.

Both Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi were both predicted lastyear by many " fans " to produce at a mark bellhorn level. Instead, both produced at a very high level, and in sheffield's case an MVP caliber season. Giambi could of had one, but because of injuries missed some time, but still managed to hit 32 homeruns, walk 108 times, and lead the AL in OBP.

Obviously, sheffield's production without steroids in 2005 changed many fans perception of him. All of a sudden there's many " sheffield for HOF ? " threads flying around, not only on this board, but many others too.

As for giambi, well he won comeback player of the year, and is regulary considered an " elite " firstbasemen by many again, though he still has his critics.

Anyway, My point is all and all giambi and sheffield's elite production without steroids in 2005 speaks volumes about the fans perception on what the drug can actually do for a player. Many have changed their opinion about the drug, some still havent.

Interestingly enough, Barry's elite production in 14 games lastyear changed some people's opinions of him. Micheal wilbon is one, skipbayless is another, hank aaron is one too. Infact, I havent seen a " let's appreciate barry bonds " article since the 2004 season, and I came across one today.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=1&num=3&q=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jimmy_traina/03/02/the.rant/

I personally think Bonds is the second best player ever after ruth, because statistically he is, and Im no baseball purist, so steroids are a joke to me.

Anyway, If his production nextyear is at a very high level, Yes, I think many will change their opinions of him, and there will be some ( especially babe ruth fans) who never will.

That's the way it is.

[BoweryBoys]

With All Due respect "Don't Worry" I think you are not giving the informed fan any credit for intelligence when it comes to Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi. Also, I think it is highly disingenuous to feel that fans will just accept that steroids have not tainted the game simply because of Sheffield's season last year.

First, I doubt anyone actually felt that both Giambi and Sheffield would produce at a "Mark Bellhorn" level simply because they "supposedly" were unable to continue possible steriod use. What most fans would expect is that neither one would smack 49 let alone 73 Home Runs without steroids and neither of them did. No one has ever argued that they both aren't two of the elites active in MLB today. What those opposed to steroids object to are the (possible) inflated artificial levels of statistical performance of recent times - especially in HRs. In no way does Sheffield's or Giambi's performances last season prove anything other then they had good seasons and did what both are capable of doing with or without steroids. The debate on steroids is the "extra" beyond a player's usual level of performance.

Also, one would be naive to feel that last year's steroid testing was so stringent as to actually prove positive that neither Sheffield or Giambi still were not using, or for that matter that it didn't matter as they may still have benefited from useage in the past. After all, players that MAY have used did so along with weight training to build strength and muscle. Has Barry Bonds lost his massive muscles even though he may have stopped using the drugs well over a year ago? Just because Giambi came to ST a bit lighter doesn't prove anything. Steroids are not a magic elixer that someone just ingests a pill and wham! they become Captain Marvel. Nor does someone suddenly become poindexter wimp just because they can no longer take the pills. The build up of new muscle and strength is already there and you cannot close the barn door after the horse is already out.

Also, many experts agree that IF a MLB player benefits from steroid use, he benefits most of all by the drug allowing his body to recouperate better and faster then a player not using the drug. Naturally this would allow any player to perfom at a consistently higher level.

Sorry, but I don't believe that many fans just suddenly buy that steroids really have not been effecting the game simply because of how Giambi and Sheffield performed "possibly" without them last year. Fans will be watching power numbers and a player suddenly having a dramatic increase in that department, especially near the end of the career, will be met with fan skepticism for years to come - due to steroids and especially Bonds.

[BoweryBoys]

I do not feel that fans who are against possible steroid use in baseball are claiming that certain players would not be anywhere near great without steroid use. It is a question of (IF) they knowingly used steroids because they at least thought that the drug would allow them to acheive levels of performance that they couldn't reach otherwise. It is not that certain players are not great players and hitters to begin with. It is that certain players (MAY) have knowingly used an artificial means as a way to inflate their perfomance and numbers to new heights and be considered to have achieved a level of greatness that even past greats could not achieve. Like it or not that mindset on a player's part, that intention, is a form of cheating the game, its history and its record book.

Of course whether steroids actually do help a player achieve added greatness beyond their normal god given capability is a topic for another thread.

No one is saying that certain great hitters of today would never have been great hitters if not for steroids. Those who don't like steroids in the game are wondering simply if their greatness hasn't been inflated a bit by the use of an illegal artificial drug induced advantage.

[Dontworry]

With All Due respect "Don't Worry" I think you are not giving the informed fan any credit for intelligence when it comes to Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi. Also, I think it is highly disingenuous to feel that fans will just accept that steroids have not tainted the game simply because of Sheffield's season last year.

First, I doubt anyone actually felt that both Giambi and Sheffield would produce at a "Mark Bellhorn" level simply because they "supposedly" were unable to continue possible steriod use. What most fans would expect is that neither one would smack 49 let alone 73 Home Runs without steroids and neither of them did. No one has ever argued that they both aren't two of the elites active in MLB today. What those opposed to steroids object to are the (possible) inflated artificial levels of statistical performance of recent times - especially in HRs. In no way does Sheffield's or Giambi's performances last season prove anything other then they had good seasons and did what both are capable of doing with or without steroids. The debate on steroids is the "extra" beyond a player's usual level of performance.

Also, one would be naive to feel that last year's steroid testing was so stringent as to actually prove positive that neither Sheffield or Giambi still were not using, or for that matter that it didn't matter as they may still have benefited from useage in the past. After all, players that MAY have used did so along with weight training to build strength and muscle. Has Barry Bonds lost his massive muscles even though he may have stopped using the drugs well over a year ago? Just because Giambi came to ST a bit lighter doesn't prove anything. Steroids are not a magic elixer that someone just ingests a pill and wham! they become Captain Marvel. Nor does someone suddenly become poindexter wimp just because they can no longer take the pills. The build up of new muscle and strength is already there and you cannot close the barn door after the horse is already out.

Also, many experts agree that IF a MLB player benefits from steroid use, he benefits most of all by the drug allowing his body to recouperate better and faster then a player not using the drug. Naturally this would allow any player to perfom at a consistently higher level.

Sorry, but I don't believe that many fans just suddenly buy that steroids really have not been effecting the game simply because of how Giambi and Sheffield performed "possibly" without them last year. Fans will be watching power numbers and a player suddenly having a dramatic increase in that department, especially near the end of the career, will be met with fan skepticism for years to come - due to steroids and especially Bonds.

" Also, I think it is highly disingenuous to feel that fans will just accept that steroids have not tainted the game simply because of Sheffield's season last year. "

Never once did I " hint " that sheffield and giambi's elite performance lastyear would change some " fans " perception of steroids " tainting " the game. I simply pointed out that their elite production lastyear changed many's opinion of them, Hence the many recent " sheffield for HOF ? " threads.

" First, I doubt anyone actually felt that both Giambi and Sheffield would produce at a "Mark Bellhorn" level simply because they "supposedly" were unable to continue possible steriod use. What most fans would expect is that neither one would smack 49 let alone 73 Home Runs without steroids and neither of them did. "

Actually Giambi was deemed as " done " by many, especially since in the start of the season his bat was cold. Sheffield actually didnt take as much heat as giambi because of his elite 2004 performance, and much of the steroid scandal being focused on bonds.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=1329

Also, I dont know where your getting this " 73 homeruns " from, because both giambi and sheffield never came close to hitting that amount of homeruns. Giambi's careerhigh was 43 in 2000, sheffield's was also 43 in 2000.

" In no way does Sheffield's or Giambi's performances last season prove anything other then they had good seasons and did what both are capable of doing with or without steroids. The debate on steroids is the "extra" beyond a player's usual level of performance. "

Again, I never said giambi and sheffield's elite performances lastyear " proved " anything, I simply pointed out that it changed some's perception of both of them, and the drug's enhancements.

" Also, one would be naive to feel that last year's steroid testing was so stringent as to actually prove positive that neither Sheffield or Giambi still were not using, or for that matter that it didn't matter as they may still have benefited from useage in the past. "

Well, MLB'S testing policy was better than most think actually, the suspensions were weak, though players could still take HGH and amphetamines.

However, The basic reason players take HGH is to help their connective tissue and ligaments deal with the increased size and stress the steroids aided muscles put on them. And your right again oral is basically useless as it has to get past the digestive and liver functions although sprays and sublingual solutions can allow some absorbtion.

So without taking some kind of anabolic steroids with HGH, it wont produce desired results like many tend to believe.

" as they may still have benefited from useage in the past "

To a certain extent, While I agree that one could maintain a good portion of the muscle obtained by anabolic steroids, without the drug you are more prone to injury, and you cant workout as long. I've sampled some steroids before, including winstrol the one they accuse mcgwire of using, and it's certainly not as easy to workout without the drug then it is with it. The difference could be about 4 hours, which is why anabolic steroid users build muscle quicker.


" Just because Giambi came to ST a bit lighter doesn't prove anything. "

Giambi came to ST much lighter than he claimed to be, the difference was very noticeable. It had to atleast be 30 pounds. Giambi quit steroids cold turkey, after abusing the hell out of them.

Even canseco mentions how giambi over abused steroids, which in the longrun is horrible, hence the many problems giambi faced in the 2004 season. He also was always " bloated " never a perfect specimen like oh let's say a sheffield or mark mcgwire, giambi didnt have the discipline they did. I believe he used to eat a bigmac before every game. Terrible way to take care of your body.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/10/60minutes/main673138.shtml
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1936592&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233

" Has Barry Bonds lost his massive muscles even though he may have stopped using the drugs well over a year ago? '

Barry Bonds has always been a gym rat, the lasttime he was " skinny " was probably in the late 80's. Bonds had tipped the scale at 210 in 1993 and maintained that weight for a longtime, I believe in 2002 he was still weighing around that range, before tipping the scale at 230 in 203.

" Also, many experts agree that IF a MLB player benefits from steroid use, he benefits most of all by the drug allowing his body to recouperate better and faster then a player not using the drug. Naturally this would allow any player to perfom at a consistently higher level. "

Yes, that's exactly what it does, Which is far from the " benefits " many falsely believe the drug provides, like improve a hitters batspeed. Recently I had read a good article about steroids and batspeed, the writer made a great point about more muscle impinging on the range of motion.

" Sorry, but I don't believe that many fans just suddenly buy that steroids really have not been effecting the game simply because of how Giambi and Sheffield performed "possibly" without them last year. Fans will be watching power numbers and a player suddenly having a dramatic increase in that department, especially near the end of the career, will be met with fan skepticism for years to come - due to steroids and especially Bonds "

Again, I never said that giambi and sheffield's elite production lastyear proved anything, I simply pointed out that it changed many's perception of both of them, especially sheffield, hence all the recent " sheffield for HOF " threads.

The simple fact is, The numbers are what they are, the " fans " will choose how to look at the numbers. They also will choose to believe howmuch steroids have " tainted " the game as you say.

[Dontworry]

I do not feel that fans who are against possible steroid use in baseball are claiming that certain players would not be anywhere near great without steroid use. It is a question of (IF) they knowingly used steroids because they at least thought that the drug would allow them to acheive levels of performance that they couldn't reach otherwise. It is not that certain players are not great players and hitters to begin with. It is that certain players (MAY) have knowingly used an artificial means as a way to inflate their perfomance and numbers to new heights and be considered to have achieved a level of greatness that even past greats could not achieve. Like it or not that mindset on a player's part, that intention, is a form of cheating the game, its history and its record book.

Of course whether steroids actually do help a player achieve added greatness beyond their normal god given capability is a topic for another thread.

No one is saying that certain great hitters of today would never have been great hitters if not for steroids. Those who don't like steroids in the game are wondering simply if their greatness hasn't been inflated a bit by the use of an illegal artificial drug induced advantage.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you.

One thing that always bothers me though is how many believe that players in the last decade are the first to actually ever experiment with the drug, which is a 100% naive.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm?csp=34

Though he later refuted his statement about others using horse steroids back in the 70's, He never refuted his own admission. So there was indeed a steroid user as far back as the 70's. The drug goes back much further though, as early as the 30's.

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/steroids.asp

http://www.localcalgary.com/

There was also the use of greenies by many players, including some in the HOF today.

I personally think the drug doesnt do much, based on evidence of numbers, and my past usage of the drug, But im not saying that im correct or that im wrong. Im just giving my opinion.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

On the contrary, it may just add fuel to the fire that if not for long-time steroid use and the residual benefits, he would in no way put up such numbers at 42.

Completely agree.

It's about him doing these things at such a late age. If he has a monster year at 42 years old, it will indict him even more imo. It's just not natural. He's already done things that nobody in HISTORY has ever done as such ages. Doing it again at 42 would be the topper.

Also, MLB not testing for HGH is still an issue.


I come from the school of thought that steroids can't help you hit a baseball. They can help you hit it farther, but he posseses the amazing eye-hand coordination to be the best hitter ever, with or without steroids.

Hand eye coordination is nice, but hitting is about more than that. It's about strength, quickness, stamina, timing, and reflexes. Every hitter throughout history has lost these things when they age; they lose these traits naturally. Yet Bonds has not. He actually increased these at a late age.

Steroids help, plain and simple, and it's about more than just a 380 foot fly ball turning into a 405 foot fly ball. It's about having more strength which results in increased quickness. Increased quickness results in greater bat speed. More stamina with the added strength means that an August swing feels the same as an April swing. More stamina and quickness means that you're able to wait back on a pitch longer than most players, giving you a split second longer to analyze the pitch speed/break/location before committing. It's a huge advantage.

And then you have the HGH which MLB does not test for which is essentially a fountain of youth. You feel younger, it gives you more stamina and energy, improves focus, improves memory, improves mental clarity, improves attention span, improves muscle mass and strength, improves joint flexibility, improves healing, and even improves vision.

[chrismarullo]

A doctor I talked to said Bonds always displayed the symptoms of HGH more than steroids (the swollen head for instance). And, as sated above, HGH helps improve your vision and coridnation.

As long as MLB refuses to test for HGH we're no better off than we were in the summer of 98.

[BoweryBoys]

My apologies "Don'tWorry" I didn't mean to imply that you were implying anything nor did I infer that. It is just the stupid way I write.

It is clear that we don't have any disagreement and actually think very similar on the topic of PEDs. However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. I fault Mr. Bonds for a lot of that.

No matter how one feels about exactly to what level that PEDs have effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that)

[Dontworry]

My apologies "Don'tWorry" I didn't mean to imply that you were implying anything nor did I infer that. It is just the stupid way I write.

It is clear that we don't have any disagreement and actually think very similar on the topic of PEDs. However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. I fault Mr. Bonds for a lot of that.

No matter how one feels about exactly to what level that PEDs have effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that)

" However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. "

Well, sheffield admitted to taking steroids, so everyone knows that he did. His production in 2005 obviously changed some minds about what the drug did for him, and the drug's enhancements.

" . I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. "

Well it's a bit too early to speculate how this whole thing will unfold. In the past year I've seen some big changes, so who knows what to expect a decade from now. By then anabolics could be sold legally because one may be created that gives desired results without posing a major health risk. Some like myself, Knows that all players from ALL generations have their pro's and their con's, so we see this as part of an " era ". Not everyone thinks like that, but some do.

" effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. "

I agree with your point there, though the legends who played in the 20's and 30's had the advantage of a segregated league, which many consider " inferior competition ". Today's legends are dominating the entire world. They also face better, more effective relief pitching, and stronger pitchers who also use ( and benefit) from PED'S. So let's not pretend that ruth and company had it that hard, they had their pro's and their con's, just like bonds and company.



" Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that "

I dont dismiss anybody's accomplishments because of anything, even shoeless joe who participated in by far the worst scandal in sports history.

I just know that each player in every era has their pro's and con's, this is the truth.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

" However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. "

Well, sheffield admitted to taking steroids, so everyone knows that he did. His production in 2005 obviously changed some minds about what the drug did for him, and the drug's enhancements.

" . I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. "

Well it's a bit too early to speculate how this whole thing will unfold. In the past year I've seen some big changes, so who knows what to expect a decade from now. By then anabolics could be sold legally because one may be created that gives desired results without posing a major health risk. Some like myself, Knows that all players from ALL generations have their pro's and their con's, so we see this as part of an " era ". Not everyone thinks like that, but some do.

" effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. "

I agree with your point there, though the legends who played in the 20's and 30's had the advantage of a segregated league, which many consider " inferior competition ". Today's legends are dominating the entire world. They also face better, more effective relief pitching, and stronger pitchers who also use ( and benefit) from PED'S. So let's not pretend that ruth and company had it that hard, they had their pro's and their con's, just like bonds and company.



" Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that "

I dont dismiss anybody's accomplishments because of anything, even shoeless joe who participated in by far the worst scandal in sports history.

I just know that each player in every era has their pro's and con's, this is the truth.

When you bring up the 20's and 30's, remember that even though it was segregated, everyone was facing the same competition and circumstances.

Today everyone benefits from the offensive environment and the dozens and dozens of other factors that make their world easier. The difference though, is that today some player choose to alter their chemical makeup in order to gain an edge over their peers.

I agree with your premise, but keep in mind the difference and why it creates such an uneven playing field within the era, and compared to all other eras.

[Blackout]

but he posseses the amazing eye-hand coordination to be the best hitter ever, with or without steroids.


but he was never even considered the best hitter ever until 2001

[runningshoes]

In the immortak words of Frank Zappa...

You know what you are?
You are what you is.

[Rowe]

And then you have the HGH which MLB does not test for which is essentially a fountain of youth. You feel younger, it gives you more stamina and energy, improves focus, improves memory, improves mental clarity, improves attention span, improves muscle mass and strength, improves joint flexibility, improves healing, and even improves vision.

and the reason I'm not taking this is?

[GiantPickle]

Are we ready to excuse Bonds? How about the other players such as Giambi, Big Mac and so on.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

and the reason I'm not taking this is?

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it. We could be living until around 120-130 years old on this stuff.

They've even got a patch, which is supposed to balance the intake and reduce the risks of:

Heart attacks
Liver damage
Fluid retention
Enlarged breasts
Carpal tunnel
Cancer
--------------------------------

Still, in about 10 years, I might be hittin' this up for a try. Here's some stuff from their website.

http://www.glacierhghpatch.com/faq.html

On the patch:

First Month: Improved stamina, better and sounder sleep, vivid dreams, feeling more refreshed upon awakening, increased energy, more optimistic attitude and a better sense of humor.

Second Month: Improved muscle tone, improved nail growth, increased strength, weight loss, enhanced sexual function, improved skin tone, better digestion, and better eyesight, especially night vision.

Third Month: Muscle size increase, hair growth, increased sexual desire, less pain, improvement in mental processes, faster wound recovery and less muscle soreness, reduction in PMS symptoms, greater body flexibility, and alleviation of some menopausal symptoms

Fourth Month: Heightened and more consistent improvements, as listed above.

Fifth Month: Impressive weight loss by inch reduction, thickening of skin and greater elasticity, thickening of hair with a shiny, health appearance, improvement in skin texture and appearance, and reduction of wrinkles.

Sixth Month: Cellulite greatly diminishes, eyesight greatly improves, stronger resistance to colds, flu and other illnesses, old wounds are healing or have healed, grayed hair begins to return to natural color, blood pressure normalizes, body is much more contoured, emotional stability is improved, some pain and soreness disappear, exercise tolerance is increased, LDL and triglycerides are reduced, heart rate improves, and immune system improves.

With the cost of injectable HGH at about $800.00 to $1200.00 per month and the HGH Patch only $59.00 per month it takes the guess work out of the equation. Injectable HGH is active approximately 30 minutes in your system before it is dissipated or lost. Because HGH dosages are not an exact science, clinical trials have not yet determined the quantity (IU’s) needed, injection times, durations for optimum results. Which simply put means there is a lot of wasted HGH happening besides the side effects that come with incorrect dosages.

HGH should not be used by anyone under 21 years old. As intelligent individuals, each one of us must decide this for him or herself. But if you're over 30 and experiencing problems that didn't exist 10 years ago, maybe these problems are associated with decreased levels of human growth hormone in your blood.

By age 30 that level is about one third of what it used to be at age 18. For most people the age of 18 was a time when we took our health for granted. But by the time we reach 30 we may be overweight, lacking energy, etc. With decreasing levels of HGH as we age, it’s no wonder things seem to get worse with time?

The following table displays the normal level of HGH in the body measured in nanograms/milliliter of blood. As you can see, there is a dramatic difference between that of an 18 year old and anyone older than 30 (1000 vs.325). It’s no wonder we start going downhill in our 30's.

Age

HGH--Level

18 --- 1000
20 --- 775
25 --- 500
30 --- 375
35 --- 325
40 --- 300
85 --- 225

After age 30 it's never too soon to start taking human growth hormone. Both men and women report gains in energy levels, reductions in body fat, and an overall sense of well being. Younger adults, especially bodybuilders and athletes of all kinds can benefit from taking this product.

[Dasperp]

It's about him doing these things at such a late age. If he has a monster year at 42 years old, it will indict him even more imo. It's just not natural. He's already done things that nobody in HISTORY has ever done as such ages. Doing it again at 42 would be the topper

So has Roger Clemens, and we don't see people constantly accusing him. Now, obviously that's completely different because we actually have testimony that Bonds used steroids, but i think it's possible that they didn't affect his performance that much and that even if he hadn't used them, he could still be playing at a high level today. Sure, most athletes can't perform so well past 40, but Bonds isn't "most athletes". He is a once in a generation talent, steroids or no steroids, and i'm just going to enjoy watching him play again.

[Dontworry]

When you bring up the 20's and 30's, remember that even though it was segregated, everyone was facing the same competition and circumstances.

Today everyone benefits from the offensive environment and the dozens and dozens of other factors that make their world easier. The difference though, is that today some player choose to alter their chemical makeup in order to gain an edge over their peers.

I agree with your premise, but keep in mind the difference and why it creates such an uneven playing field within the era, and compared to all other eras.

" ]When you bring up the 20's and 30's, remember that even though it was segregated, everyone was facing the same competition and circumstances. "

Everybody during that time, not everyone after, so yes it was an " unfair " advantage to players like mays, mantle, etc.

" Today everyone benefits from the offensive environment and the dozens and dozens of other factors that make their world easier. The difference though, is that today some player choose to alter their chemical makeup in order to gain an edge over their peers. "

I agree with what your saying, bit if you think anabolic steroids are the only " enhancers " out there that players and pitchers use, that's ignorant. Hell, even " flaxseed oil " could help with certain things.

If a player chooses not to use it, so be it, obviously the " non juicers " or amphetamines users didnt care enough to get rid of the stuff out of the game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

" ]When you bring up the 20's and 30's, remember that even though it was segregated, everyone was facing the same competition and circumstances. "

Everybody during that time, not everyone after, so yes it was an " unfair " advantage to players like mays, mantle, etc.

" Today everyone benefits from the offensive environment and the dozens and dozens of other factors that make their world easier. The difference though, is that today some player choose to alter their chemical makeup in order to gain an edge over their peers. "

I agree with what your saying, bit if you think anabolic steroids are the only " enhancers " out there that players and pitchers use, that's ignorant. Hell, even " flaxseed oil " could help with certain things.

If a player chooses not to use it, so be it, obviously the " non juicers " or amphetamines users didnt care enough to get rid of the stuff out of the game.

My point was that you can't compare segregation with using steroids.

In one era, everyone was facing who was put in front of them, for right or wrong.

In another era, even though, they benefit from an offensive environment, some players STILL CHOOSE to gain an edge over their peers.

[Blackout]

if Giambi could rebound after going off roids, I'm sure Bonds can too

[Rowe]

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it.....

They've even got a patch, which is supposed to balance the intake and reduce the risks of:

Heart attacks
Liver damage
Fluid retention
Enlarged breasts
Carpal tunnel
Cancer
--------------------------------

Still, in about 10 years, I might be hittin' this up for a try. Here's some stuff from their website.

http://www.glacierhghpatch.com/faq.html


This is snake oil. If Bonds took this or any other homeopathic BS, the only benefit he got was the placebo effect.

Real hgh is readily available from AIDS patient in SF and maybe from Chinese sources. Tough to say what the effect would be on a healthy relatively young male.

[Dontworry]

My point was that you can't compare segregation with using steroids.

In one era, everyone was facing who was put in front of them, for right or wrong.

In another era, even though, they benefit from an offensive environment, some players STILL CHOOSE to gain an edge over their peers.

I understand what your saying, Just like when players choose to cork their bat, or use amphetamines, or " cheat " in other ways. Just like cobb chose to abuse players with his spikes.

Im not comparing segregation to " cheating ", im just pointing out that it was an unfair advantage, this cannot be argued.

[Dontworry]

This is snake oil. If Bonds took this or any other homeopathic BS, the only benefit he got was the placebo effect.

Real hgh is readily available from AIDS patient in SF and maybe from Chinese sources. Tough to say what the effect would be on a healthy relatively young male.

HGH is used for the ligament benefits that most players use it for in concert with steroids because it will prevent the ligament/connective tissue injuries/failure thats associated with Anabolic Steroid use.

So basically without using Anabolic steroids with HGH, you wouldnt get any desired results from HGH alone.

[Blackout]

As for giambi, well he won comeback player of the year, and is regulary considered an " elite " firstbasemen by many again, though he still has his critics.


but you must also keep in mind that Giambi will never be the .340, 200 OPS+ guy he was 5 years ago on steroids

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I understand what your saying, Just like when players choose to cork their bat, or use amphetamines, or " cheat " in other ways. Just like cobb chose to abuse players with his spikes.

Im not comparing segregation to " cheating ", im just pointing out that it was an unfair advantage, this cannot be argued.


It can be argued because look at what you're comparing it to.

They played against who they did. Everyone put in front of them, they played, and it wasn't in their control.

You think the best of the best are playing today but they are not. Not in this society with thousands of other things to get into, you can't be naive and think that the best always make it to the end of the rainbow. Just doesn't work like that.

I will buy the unfair advantage when talking about Mays' era. But we're talking about WITHIN each era; who cheated to gain advantages over their peers. THESE GUYS do today, with the steroids and the HGH and who knows what else.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

HGH is used for the ligament benefits that most players use it for in concert with steroids because it will prevent the ligament/connective tissue injuries/failure thats associated with Anabolic Steroid use.

So basically without using Anabolic steroids with HGH, you wouldnt get any desired results from HGH alone.

It's a wonderful complimentary drug with steroids yes. The main reason being increased bone mass. Bonds' frame wasn't made to carry the weight he's put on from steroids, "allegedly," so he "allegedly" increased his bone mass through HGH. It can be used by itself though, and still has benefits.

[Dasperp]

but you must also keep in mind that Giambi will never be the .340, 200 OPS+ guy he was 5 years ago on steroids

Most of that can just be attributed to age-related decline. He only his .340 once, and that was just a career year in his prime. Giambi doesn't have the type of body or skills that age well.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Anyway, If his production nextyear is at a very high level, Yes, I think many will change their opinions of him, and there will be some ( especially babe ruth fans) who never will.

That's the way it is.

I don't believe "many" is the correct word here. Logic tells me some will change their opinion of Bonds, but not many they have already made up their minds.
Whether one believes he did not use steroids, steroids do not help that much, that Barry is being treated unfairly will not matter to a good number of others. The cloud of possible steroid use will follow Barry even after he leaves the game.

Again fair or not fair you can bet that when and if he passes Ruth and maybe Aaron and we see ESPN and any sports or news announcement of that event, the word steroid will be included. It's just common sense, human nature there is no way Barry and possible steroid use can be separated.

You will notice I never said he is guilty of using steroids because as far as we know no test has confirmed this, still all of the above will take place.

Do I think he used steroids yes. His off the chart surge coming at a time when most players level off makes one wonder. His statement before the grand jury about using a clear and a cream that most believe might have been a steroid give reason to lean that way. Does this prove without a doubt that he used steroids, no not without a doubt but the possibilityof use is reinforced.

One more reason that makes me lean more that way, to possibility of steroid use. Lawyers for both Bonds and Sheffield made the same statements, "that their clients never " knowingly" that they were unaware of the fact substances they used may have been a steroid. Could these lawyers be building a case to be used if it was proven that both or one of them did use a steroid. Could they then say OK they used a steroid but they were lied to, told it was another substance legal. How can some one be held responsible, how can one be guilty if they were unaware. How can one be charged with perjury, they never lied, they were unaware.
This defense has been around for all time, "I didn't know the gun was loaded", how can I be held accountable.

Closing, is Barry guilty, no he's not he has to be considered innocent, nothing proven. Do I think he used steroids, I do.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Getting off the subject of Barry, look at steroid use in general. To a degree is it not logical to assume that a hitter who weighs a certain weight will be stronger, increase bat speed and hit a ball further if he puts on 20 pounds plus. Is this going to make some hitters great hitters, great sluggers, no way but it will benefit some.

To point out that some steroid users in the game did not turn into superman are only average or even below proves steroids may do nothing are not an advantage carries little weight. It helps some others not, but all are guilty.

Were not discussing Barry here, any hitter in general. Is it not a fact that some steroids can allow the body to recuperate in a shorter time.

I don't see how some say steroids in many sports not just baeball give one an advantage over the non users. Many a body builder has stated that they used steroids to their advantage.

Did anyone see that special with Richard Conte from Balco lab that was on TV some months ago. There were some photos of a girl a track star, not Marian jones, I don't recall her name. Pictures of this girl were taken from behind. One photo while using steroids, broader in the back, bigger shoulders even bigger arms plain to see, almost appears to be masculine in body build. It's actually hard to tell if the pic is of a man or woman. In the next photo a world of difference, smaller all the way around after stopping steroid use.

The point here is you can argue whether you agree steroid help one perform better but there can be no debating known facts, it makes one stronger, bulids skeletal muscle and adds body weight

[Dontworry]

It can be argued because look at what you're comparing it to.

They played against who they did. Everyone put in front of them, they played, and it wasn't in their control.

You think the best of the best are playing today but they are not. Not in this society with thousands of other things to get into, you can't be naive and think that the best always make it to the end of the rainbow. Just doesn't work like that.

I will buy the unfair advantage when talking about Mays' era. But we're talking about WITHIN each era; who cheated to gain advantages over their peers. THESE GUYS do today, with the steroids and the HGH and who knows what else.

" It can be argued because look at what you're comparing it to.

They played against who they did. Everyone put in front of them, they played, and it wasn't in their control. "

I've already told you, I'm not comparing segregation to taking steroids, I understand your point, but that still doesnt change the fact that playing in a 100% segregated league was indeed an advantage other legends didnt have.

" You think the best of the best are playing today but they are not. Not in this society with thousands of other things to get into, you can't be naive and think that the best always make it to the end of the rainbow. Just doesn't work like that. "

I agree to a certain extent, while the " best of the best " may not be playing today, there is no denying that there's A LOT of young superstars today, pitchers and hitters. Cabrera, Pujols, willis, howard, perelta, etc, it's incredible how these young players produce at such a high level in their first years in the majors. Players today are also bigger, stronger, faster, etc. I understand that back in ruth's day they didnt have many of these medical advantages, but transporting him into today's game, with all the " advantages " today's players have, would he dominate the same, would he pitch like he did in the segregated league ?

We'll never know, and IMO, I dont think so.

" I will buy the unfair advantage when talking about Mays' era. But we're talking about WITHIN each era; who cheated to gain advantages over their peers. THESE GUYS do today, with the steroids and the HGH and who knows what else "

I get this feeling that you believe that athletes started experimenting with steroids in the 80's and 90's, I hope not, because that's naive.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/anabolic_steroids.htm

http://www.umt.edu/urelations/vision/2001/shortcuts.htm

They have been around since the 30's, so anybody could of used them. The thing is we'll probably never know who did, so the players who've been caught will take all the " heat " till the " scandal " eventually blows over.

[Dontworry]

It's a wonderful complimentary drug with steroids yes. The main reason being increased bone mass. Bonds' frame wasn't made to carry the weight he's put on from steroids, "allegedly," so he "allegedly" increased his bone mass through HGH. It can be used by itself though, and still has benefits.

Sultan, HGH is and was reported to be used by the athletes to strengthen the connective tissue and ligaments so the Steroid aided muscles don't cause the catastrophic failure that results from abnormally large muscles. The reason HGH isnt as " good " as Steroids is it makes everything bigger, bones, muscle everything.

So as I said before, without using some type of anabolic steroid with HGH, alone you wouldnt get any desired results.

[Dontworry]

I don't believe "many" is the correct word here. Logic tells me some will change their opinion of Bonds, but not many they have already made up their minds.
Whether one believes he did not use steroids, steroids do not help that much, that Barry is being treated unfairly will not matter to a good number of others. The cloud of possible steroid use will follow Barry even after he leaves the game.

Again fair or not fair you can bet that when and if he passes Ruth and maybe Aaron and we see ESPN and any sports or news announcement of that event, the word steroid will be included. It's just common sense, human nature there is no way Barry and possible steroid use can be separated.

You will notice I never said he is guilty of using steroids because as far as we know no test has confirmed this, still all of the above will take place.

Do I think he used steroids yes. His off the chart surge coming at a time when most players level off makes one wonder. His statement before the grand jury about using a clear and a cream that most believe might have been a steroid give reason to lean that way. Does this prove without a doubt that he used steroids, no not without a doubt but the possibilityof use is reinforced.

One more reason that makes me lean more that way, to possibility of steroid use. Lawyers for both Bonds and Sheffield made the same statements, "that their clients never " knowingly" that they were unaware of the fact substances they used may have been a steroid. Could these lawyers be building a case to be used if it was proven that both or one of them did use a steroid. Could they then say OK they used a steroid but they were lied to, told it was another substance legal. How can some one be held responsible, how can one be guilty if they were unaware. How can one be charged with perjury, they never lied, they were unaware.
This defense has been around for all time, "I didn't know the gun was loaded", how can I be held accountable.

Closing, is Barry guilty, no he's not he has to be considered innocent, nothing proven. Do I think he used steroids, I do.

" I don't believe "many" is the correct word here. Logic tells me some will change their opinion of Bonds, but not many they have already made up their minds. "

I dont necessarily believe that's true, but if that's your opinion, so be it. I have seen some opinions change of bonds, and the steroid " scandal " in general. Wilbon, bayless, and even aaron are a few examples.

I agree with what your saying about the " steroid cloud " following bonds throughout his chase, but that has nothing to do with what people believe the drug did for him. People usually mention alcohol when discussing ruth, or ty cobb's horrific personality when discussing him, or joe's involvement in the blacksox scandal when discussing him, it's a " cloud " that always follows them, though everyone may not agree with eachother's opinion on the player in general.

[Dontworry]

Getting off the subject of Barry, look at steroid use in general. To a degree is it not logical to assume that a hitter who weighs a certain weight will be stronger, increase bat speed and hit a ball further if he puts on 20 pounds plus. Is this going to make some hitters great hitters, great sluggers, no way but it will benefit some.

To point out that some steroid users in the game did not turn into superman are only average or even below proves steroids may do nothing are not an advantage carries little weight. It helps some others not, but all are guilty.

Were not discussing Barry here, any hitter in general. Is it not a fact that some steroids can allow the body to recuperate in a shorter time.

I don't see how some say steroids in many sports not just baeball give one an advantage over the non users. Many a body builder has stated that they used steroids to their advantage.

Did anyone see that special with Richard Conte from Balco lab that was on TV some months ago. There were some photos of a girl a track star, not Marian jones, I don't recall her name. Pictures of this girl were taken from behind. One photo while using steroids, broader in the back, bigger shoulders even bigger arms plain to see, almost appears to be masculine in body build. It's actually hard to tell if the pic is of a man or woman. In the next photo a world of difference, smaller all the way around after stopping steroid use.

The point here is you can argue whether you agree steroid help one perform better but there can be no debating known facts, it makes one stronger, bulids skeletal muscle and adds body weight

Shoeless, I dont think anyone's denying that steroids help one build muscle.

Steroids are the quick answer to someone that wants to put a lot of muscle mass on quick, but there are still enough over the counter products out there that could give you great results, just not as quick.

I've always played lots of sports, so I lifted all the time. I used creatine, protein powders, and a few other legal supplements and was able to put 35 pounds of good muscle on over a 2.5yr span. Given an open wallet, which pro players have, time and personal trainers at my disposal I'd like to think I could be in just as good of shape as some MLB players supposedly on steroids. Also, I've sampled some steroids before, Yes I did build muscle quicker, but not MUCH quicker. You still have to workout like a beast to obtain any muscle.

So you have to look at the guys who got big really quick (sammy sosa for one), not guys that got bigger over time(not to say they didn't use steroids, but it's possible that they did it legally).

Now, anybody who has sampled steroids knows it's half psychological, the other half is helping you in some way. You do feel more alert and " stronger " and able to workout longer, this I wont deny.

But hey, Even canseco speculates that a lot of it is psychological.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6949527/

About steroids increasing batspeed, I agree that if you think about it, more muscle would mean more homeruns, but is that necessarily true ?

Wouldnt more muscle impinge on the range of motion ?

I had read a good article about this once, and what annoys me is I cant find it, but If I do, I will post it.

But anyway, just as an example of what Im saying, go outside right now and take a couple of swings. Now, go back in and put on 4 T-shirts and a button down shirt. Now go outside and swing a few. If you can't tell a difference in your range of motion, you would be lying. Now after doing that little " experiment " would bulk and muscle increase or decrease your batspeed ?


" Is it not a fact that some steroids can allow the body to recuperate in a shorter time. "

Why it's true that steroids help you with recovery, that's only if you properly use them.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/stories/2002-07-08-steroids-questions.htm

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/special_report/news/2002/05/28/verducci/

When abused, it can cause you serious injuries, Which I think explains the recent trips to the DL by many players.

Anyway shoeless, We both agree that it helps you build muscle faster when you workout, but the question is how much does it " enhance " a baseball players performance ?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I've always played lots of sports, so I lifted all the time. I used creatine, protein powders, and a few other legal supplements and was able to put 35 pounds of good muscle on over a 2.5yr span.



And how old were you when you put on this muscle mass? My guess is, that you weren't in your mid 30's.



About steroids increasing batspeed, I agree that if you think about it, more muscle would mean more homeruns, but is that necessarily true ?

Yes

Wouldnt more muscle impinge on the range of motion ?

Muscle mass effects flexibility for sure. One of the benefits of HGH is that is increases flexibility. How big Bonds has got though, his flexibility is clearly impacted in throwing, running, etc.

Hitting is a different story though. It's such a short, quick motion, that comes from torquing your hips, that there's no range of motion issues. This answer is 100% no when it comes to hitting.

It is mostly a psychological thing. The superhuman feeling. Who wouldn't become addicted to that feeling.

[Blackout]

Most of that can just be attributed to age-related decline. He only his .340 once, and that was just a career year in his prime. Giambi doesn't have the type of body or skills that age well.


he hit .333 another year as well

[Dontworry]

And how old were you when you put on this muscle mass? My guess is, that you weren't in your mid 30's.




Yes


Muscle mass effects flexibility for sure. One of the benefits of HGH is that is increases flexibility. How big Bonds has got though, his flexibility is clearly impacted in throwing, running, etc.

Hitting is a different story though. It's such a short, quick motion, that comes from torquing your hips, that there's no range of motion issues. This answer is 100% no when it comes to hitting.

It is mostly a psychological thing. The superhuman feeling. Who wouldn't become addicted to that feeling.

Sultan, We'll have to agree to disagree, because we both have different views on what steroids does for an athlete.

About Bonds weight gain, I believe his biggest weight gain was in the early 90's, when he went from 190 to 210.

[Perseas]

NO. What he does this year will not affect my perspective on him one little bit...