Bonds: Sweeney not involved in alleged failed amphetamine test

[Skin & Bones]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-amphetamines&prov=ap&type=lgns

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Barry Bonds said he did not get amphetamines from teammate Mark Sweeney, but did not deny a report Thursday saying he tested positive for the drugs last season.

According to a story in the New York Daily News, the San Francisco slugger failed an amphetamines test in 2006. The newspaper reported that when first informed of the positive result, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from Sweeney's locker.

"He is both my teammate and my friend," Bonds said in a statement. "He did not give me anything whatsoever and has nothing to do with this matter, contrary to recent reports.

"I want to express my deepest apologies especially to Mark and his family as well as my other teammates, the San Francisco Giants organization and the fans," he said.

That's all the Giants star, shadowed by steroids allegations and only 22 home runs from breaking Hank Aaron's career home run record, said about the alleged positive drug test. Bonds has steadfastly denied used performance-enhancing drugs.

ADVERTISEMENT


"Obviously, we're pleased that Barry has straightened this out," said Sweeney's agent, Barry Axelrod.

Bonds' reported positive test could be another snag in contract negotiations with the Giants. The sides reached a preliminary agreement on a $16 million, one-year contract Dec. 7, but the seven-time NL MVP still hasn't signed the deal or taken the mandatory physical that is part of the process.

The sides have been working to finalize complicated language in the contract that concerns the left fielder's compliance with team rules, as well as what would happen if he were to be indicted or have other legal troubles.

"Last night was the first time we heard of this recent accusation against Barry Bonds," the Giants said in the statement. "Under Major League Baseball's collective bargaining agreement with the Major League Baseball Players Association, clubs are not notified after a player receives a first positive test for amphetamines."

Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president for labor relations, refused comment, according to spokesman Rich Levin.

"I don't comment on the drug program, and I've never heard Barry Bonds blame anybody for anything," Gene Orza, the union's chief operating officer, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

San Francisco's front office and fan base long have stood by Bonds through his off-the-field problems and injuries. So have his teammates, deciding in spring training last year to support him every step of the way.

"There are so many substances out there right now you don't know what you should take or what you should not," Giants shortstop Omar Vizquel said Thursday. "Right now, I'm afraid to take vitamins for the same reason. You don't know what's going to be positive or what's going to be negative. The best way for players is to stay natural. Anything with chemicals in it can be bad. I know what I do. I don't know what the other guys do, and I don't really care.

"I tell the younger guys, but you don't need to be telling Barry Bonds and Mark Sweeney what they should take or what they should not."


AP - Jan 11, 10:30 am EST
More Photos


There's a long history of amphetamines -- or speed and more commonly called "greenies" in the baseball world -- fueling generations of baseball players. Many turned to the stimulants for a way to get pepped up when their bodies couldn't do so on their own during a long season.

The pills, widely used even until recently, helped with energy for day games following night games and other times when players were short on sleep, such as after a long cross country flight.

Baseball banned the uppers for the first time starting last season. A player is not identified until after failing two amphetamines tests, which also results in a 25-game suspension. The first failed steroids test, by comparison, is a 50-game suspension.

A first amphetamines offense, however, does require six additional drug tests over the following six months.

Bonds did not appeal the positive test, according to the Daily News, which said Sweeney learned of Bonds' positive test from Orza. The newspaper reported Orza told Sweeney he should remove any troublesome substances from his locker and should not share said substances. Sweeney then said there was nothing of concern in his locker.

Before Bonds' statement, Axelrod told the AP that his client received a call informing him that his name had come up in regard to the testing.

"He responded at that time ... he did not give anything to anybody and he doesn't have anything illegal," Axelrod said. "That was the end of it, as far as we were concerned, until yesterday. We thought it was just a sort of procedural thing."

A federal grand jury is investigating whether Bonds perjured himself when he testified in 2003 in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid distribution case that he hadn't knowingly taken any performance-enhancing drugs. He told that 2003 grand jury he believed his trainer, Greg Anderson, had given him flaxseed oil and arthritic balm, not steroids.

Bonds, who's coming off October surgery on his troublesome left elbow, played regularly in 2006.

After missing all but 14 games in 2005 following three operations on his right knee, Bonds batted .270 with 26 homers and 77 RBIs in 130 games last year. He passed Babe Ruth to move into second place on the career home run list May 28.

Bonds has spent 14 of his 21 big league seasons with San Francisco and helped the Giants draw 3 million fans in all seven seasons with them. The team is counting on him to be part of the hype leading up to its hosting of the All-Star game in July.

Bonds said he noticed an improved vibe in the clubhouse last season with the additions of Steve Finley, Sweeney and Todd Greene. The slugger was more sociable too, playing cards or chess with his teammates or trainers before games -- and even making a rare appearance in the team photo.

Bonds and Sweeney appeared to be good friends, with Sweeney speaking to the slugger by phone recently this offseason.

"This year we had the best chemistry on the team. I felt like the team was clicking," Vizquel said. "It's sad a stupid instance like this might rupture something that was going pretty good. I don't think the players will turn on each other. We are a veteran team. We should know what (substance) is good and what is bad."

AP Baseball Writer Ronald Blum in New York contributed to this story.

[Williamsburg2599]

So what's his story now?

[Skin & Bones]

So what's his story now?

Well, apparently he took Amphetamines ( he doesn't deny the report that he tested positive), but apparently he never mentioned anything about Sweeney giving it to him, or getting it from his locker.

[Esdras]

From what I have read Barry denies taking amphetamines and even denies testing positive for them.

[hiddengem]

Who gives a flying ---- if he took them or not.

[Old Sweater]

Who gives a flying ---- if he took them or not.

All the perfect people.

[Dravecky43]

From what I have read Barry denies taking amphetamines and even denies testing positive for them.
Hmm. I personally haven't seen that. The statement about Sweeney not being involved is actually close to an admission.

[ESPNFan]

This is just damage control at this point. Poor Mark Sweeny is going to be hounded for months now.

[Old Sweater]

"There are so many substances out there right now you don't know what you should take or what you should not," Giants shortstop Omar Vizquel said Thursday. "Right now, I'm afraid to take vitamins for the same reason. You don't know what's going to be positive or what's going to be negative. The best way for players is to stay natural. Anything with chemicals in it can be bad. I know what I do. I don't know what the other guys do, and I don't really care.

"I tell the younger guys, but you don't need to be telling Barry Bonds and Mark Sweeney what they should take or what they should not."

Another reason I like Omar the Great.

Minds his own business.

[Mattingly]

From what I have read Barry denies taking amphetamines and even denies testing positive for them.
http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Carson.as.Carnac.jpg

Carnac the Magnificent predicts ... that Barry Bonds will say that he unknowingly took speed, which he'd trusted his trainer (or friends, teammates, etc) to supply to him.

I can't wait until 5 years after this guy retires so that he can get the same 23.5% treatment as Big Mac. Let's see him complain then.

[TonyK]

Who gives a flying ---- if he took them or not.

Aren't you a little dissapointed in his lack of judgment and then the defense he used when questioned about it? I would think pro players have to be fed up with these annual Bonds stories and allegations.

[TonyK]

This is just damage control at this point. Poor Mark Sweeny is going to be hounded for months now.

I wonder what would have happened if Mark Sweeney got so upset that he went along with it and threw Bonds a curveball of his own?

What if he told the press that sure he gave Barry those greenies plus more illegal drugs every time he asked for them? What could Bonds do about it...call him a liar?

Naturally Bonds has to defend Sweeney (knowing Mark is either out of his mind or on something himself), but nobody will take his word over Mark's. Bonds would have never figured out how to get out of this mess.

[Williamsburg2599]

All the perfect people.
Sorry, I've never taken greenies, If Bonds wants to get on my case for cheating on a test in pre-school, then he can.

[Skin & Bones]

I can't wait until 5 years after this guy retires so that he can get the same 23.5% treatment as Big Mac. Let's see him complain then.

Doubt it, assuming he retires in 07, the time he's eligible is in 2012. By then, IMO, the whole steroid outcry will have died down - I could be wrong, but this is my opinion.

[Rapmaster]

Doubt it, assuming he retires in 07, the time he's eligible is in 2012. By then, IMO, the whole steroid outcry will have died down - I could be wrong, but this is my opinion.

I don't see it dying down. Barry Bonds and his chase at 756 is the entire debacle at the moment. It'll start up again when he's eligible.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Who gives a flying ---- if he took them or not.

Couldn't agree more. The problem I have isn't with the greenies, its Bonds being Bonds and deflecting any and all blame. Except in this case, he did just about the worst thing you could do in a clubhouse (as you well know HG) by mentioning Sweeney's name.

[Skin & Bones]

I don't see it dying down. Barry Bonds and his chase at 756 is the entire debacle at the moment. It'll start up again when he's eligible.

People forget quickly what's not in the spotlight, IMO. Atleast people as a whole. Again, maybe I'm wrong here, but five years from now this will all die down, especially if it's proven that as many players as Canseco, Gwynn, Caminiti, etc said were using steroids and greenies.

[Mattingly]

Doubt it, assuming he retires in 07, the time he's eligible is in 2012. By then, IMO, the whole steroid outcry will have died down - I could be wrong, but this is my opinion.
Well, one huge difference between Mac and Bonds, in that as of today, Mac is a debatable HoFer. Barry, even before 2001, was said to be a shoe-in. Still, I suggest that he get the same treatment as Mac. Given he gets low enough numbers, just keep stringing him along for sometime, then see if the numbers eventually get low enough to be totally removed from future ballots.

That's my solution. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

People forget quickly what's not in the spotlight, IMO. Atleast people as a whole. Again, maybe I'm wrong here, but five years from now this will all die down, especially if it's proven that as many players as Canseco, Gwynn, Caminiti, etc said were using steroids and greenies.

Doesn't matter how many others are "proven" to have used. Its about Bonds for one reason and one reason only. When he SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLINING, he put up Ruthian numbers and that allowed him to approach and eventually surpass Ruth and Aaron. This is about impact and in that sense, there's none bigger than a steroid user owning the single season and career home-run marks thanks to PED's. Who knows what will happen when Bonds is eventually on the ballot. One thing is clear though. Using the "well the pitchers were using too" argument is weak. Yeah, the pitchers were using? How did that work out for them? Last I checked its never been easier to put up offensive numbers. The entire game is geared for offense. Again, take every pitcher and put them on a regimented steroid program and guarantee that all hitters are just on steak and potatoes...the hitters would STILL have an edge. Its the environment baseball created. The roids are just overkill.

[Skin & Bones]

Doesn't matter how many others are "proven" to have used. Its about Bonds for one reason and one reason only. When he SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLINING, he put up Ruthian numbers and that allowed him to approach and eventually surpass Ruth and Aaron.

Actually, it does matter - Because the unfair advantage over his current pears is non existent then - You can keep repeating " the he should of declined " crap over and over again - Nobody is going to buy it. I don't care when he used, or when anyone uses - These drugs benefitted many players/pitchers in his time immensly to the point where the unfair advantage over his peers becomes moot. And most of these players and pitchers used these drugs in their physical primes - That's when these drugs are the most effective.

Yeah, the pitchers were using? How did that work out for them?

I'd say pretty well. They, along with Greenies, turned Grimsley into a MLB caliber pitcher, and they got Paxton Crawford a job.

[ESPNFan]

Actually, it does matter - Because the unfair advantage over his current pears is non existent then - You can keep repeating " the he should of declined " crap over and over again - Nobody is going to buy it. I don't care when he used, or when anyone uses - These drugs benefited many players/pitchers in his time immensely to the point where the unfair advantage over his peers becomes moot. And most of these players and pitchers used these drugs in their physical primes - That's when these drugs are the most effective.



I'd say pretty well. They, along with Greenies, turned Grimsley into a MLB caliber pitcher, and they got Paxton Crawford a job.

I buy the he should have declined "crap". Is crap a technical term btw?
Ken Caminetti put up numbers that he never approached ever again on Steroids, even while taking them in the most haphazard dangerous way.
To Quote Caminitti directly:
"It's still a hand-eye coordination game, but the difference [with steroids] is the ball is going to go a little farther," Caminiti says. "Some of the balls that would go to the warning track will go out. That's the difference."

Why is it hard to believe that a player as skilled as Barry is could have completely reversed the normal career cycle with his alleged use, especially when he sought out a whole laboratory to do so?

Grimsley was a MLB caliber pitcher before he turned to PED's and also took HGH which could be the most effective PED for a pitcher. And Paxton Crawford says steroids contributed to the back problems that cost him his job. Funny how you always leave these little details out isn't it?

Your constant dismissal of opinions contrary to your own, despite their plausibility and, siting examples where you deliberately leave out key details that contradict the point you are trying to make, makes you sound like a disingenuous zealot.

[west coast orange and black]

ESPNFan: Why is it hard to believe that a player as skilled as Barry is could have completely reversed the normal career cycle with his alleged use, especially when he sought out a whole laboratory to do so?

it is quite possible that bonds' gains were leaps + bounds better than everyone else's -- highly monitored lab tests, advanced medicine, trainers, nutritionist, personal chef, physical regimen, personal drive... on top of all of that talent.

[Whitesoxnut]

At least he didnt say he got the drug from rubbing cold cream. He's improving!:)

[-Kyle-]

This is just damage control at this point. Poor Mark Sweeny is going to be hounded for months now.
I hope not. He grew up in my hometown and played High School Ball and I've met his parents, they are very nice.

[ESPNFan]

ESPNFan: Why is it hard to believe that a player as skilled as Barry is could have completely reversed the normal career cycle with his alleged use, especially when he sought out a whole laboratory to do so?

it is quite possible that bonds' gains were leaps + bounds better than everyone else's -- highly monitored lab tests, advanced medicine, trainers, nutritionist, personal chef, physical regimen, personal drive... on top of all of that talent.

Right which is why made sure to say alleged use. There are alot of possibilities, and to dismiss any as "crap" is extremely shortsighted, to say the least.

[ESPNFan]

I hope not. He grew up in my hometown and played High School Ball and I've met his parents, they are very nice.

I have no doubt. Just based on what I know about the Palmeiro/Tejada situation I have a feeling that everyone and their mother in the press will be swarming Mr. Sweeny come spring training.

[Skin & Bones]

Right which is why made sure to say alleged use. There are alot of possibilities, and to dismiss any as "crap" is extremely shortsighted, to say the least.

What did I dimiss as crap? The whole elevator theory? Yes, it is crap. Not everyone experiences a decline. Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson are two recent examples. There have been many more. Did others improve the way Bonds did? With the exception of Honus Wagner, no, but we aren't talking degree here, we're talking whether or not everyone experiences a " natural " decline, and that's clearly false.

As to whether or not Bonds benefitted more from PED'S than others, it's possible, but IMO, not likely - It just may seem that way due to the numbers he posted. We could see a below average MLB player increase his HR power at the same rate Bonds did, yet not notice it because his numbers wouldn't be Ruthian.

From every legit source I've read regarding Bonds alleged steroid use, he took a solid cocktail from 99-01, and then turned to undetectables ( which I've heard don't provide the same results as the " regulars ") afterwards because of testing. The ones he used prior to 02, the illegal detectable ones, were around for everyone to use - and the undetectable ones he allegedly used later were around for everyone to use. So I fail to see how he took drugs nobody had the advantage of taking - Every single drug he allegedly used was available to the general public, and most certainly was used by many many ballplayers/pitchers during his time. The amounts he used? He stacked, what steroid user doesn't stack?

Then, there's the age he used, which some claim is the best time to use it - Though I fail to see how an older athlete would benefit from PED'S more than a younger athlete already in his physical prime. A while ago on ESPN classic I had seen a special on steroids where two men who've used anabolics for years claimed to have reaped the most benefits during their physical primes - They were already in tip top shape, and adding PED'S to the mix brought them to the highest level. Heck, Jose Canseco has said the best steroids ever helped him was in his physical prime. And this guy was an expert on getting the best benefits from these drugs - According to him, he was so good at using them, and helping others use them, that he could of turned Ben Grieve into a super star.

So, IMO, this is Bonds case

He was still in his physical prime when he started using ( at age 34 in 1999), and was going to maintain his elite peak production during the 1990's well into his late 30's, and even early 40's, without PED'S, like Roger Clemens and Hank Aaron were able to do. It's quite possible that even without illegal PED'S, he could of had a few of his best seasons in his late 30's, like a Randy Johnson did. They just wouldn't however be Ruthian. THAT'S what happened to Bonds, IMO. From 99-04, he still would of been one of the leagues best, and maybe the best once or twice.

This is all speculation of course, but reasonable, IMO.

[Skin & Bones]

As to whether or not Grimsley got better with steroids/other illegal PED'S...

He started in 1999 - So let's compare his pre and post 99 numbers using a pretty decent pitching metric called Runs saved against average ( RSAA). " - " means negative, which is below average.

1989-1996:

RSAA
1989:-5
1990: 3
1991:-8
1993:-6
1994:4
1995:-6
1996: -28
TOTAL: -46

Grimsley's performance while on a variety of drugs:

1999-2006

RSAA
1999: 7
2000: 1
2001: 17
2002: 11
2003: 0
2004: 5
2005: -4
2006: 0
TOTAL: 37


I think it's pretty safe to say that Grimsley benefitted immensly from PED'S, and that they did turn him into an MLB caliber pitcher.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What did I dimiss as crap? The whole elevator theory? Yes, it is crap. Not everyone experiences a decline.

Actually, naturally they do. Exactly when and to what degree depends on many things, but yes, eventually they decline, and the reason for that is the physical elevator plummeting. Its at that point, that no matter how many years of knowledge/experience you have under your belt, you just can't physically do what you once could. Why is Bonds' situation unique. Because he started using when he still had physical tools, but when those physical tools had been on a plateau, and shortly they would have been declining. What he did after '98 is a complete joke. He became a physical specimen that he never could have been in his natural peak AND had all the experience/knowledge under his belt. That lethal combo of both elevators being so high is NOT crap, and it IS what led to those Ruthian numberes. Would he have had few, maybe even four productive seasons post '98, sure imo, but eventually there would have been a decline. No getting around that.

[ESPNFan]

As to whether or not Grimsley got better with steroids/other illegal PED'S...

He started in 1999 - So let's compare his pre and post 99 numbers using a pretty decent pitching metric called Runs saved against average ( RSAA). " - " means negative, which is below average.



Grimsley's performance while on a variety of drugs:

I think it's pretty safe to say that Grimsley benefitted immensly from PED'S, and that they did turn him into an MLB caliber pitcher.

So he wasn't an MLB Caliber pitcher when he was in the league from 1989 to 1996? I bet thats news to him. The other possibility which you shockingly don't mention is that he was a starter and then transitioned to a reliver. How many mediocre starters have we seem become good bullpen guys. And its funny you go out of your way not to mention HGH. I wonder why that is.

[ESPNFan]

What did I dimiss as crap? The whole elevator theory? Yes, it is crap. Not everyone experiences a decline. Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson are two recent examples. There have been many more. Did others improve the way Bonds did? With the exception of Honus Wagner, no, but we aren't talking degree here, we're talking whether or not everyone experiences a " natural " decline, and that's clearly false.

As to whether or not Bonds benefitted more from PED'S than others, it's possible, but IMO, not likely - It just may seem that way due to the numbers he posted. We could see a below average MLB player increase his HR power at the same rate Bonds did, yet not notice it because his numbers wouldn't be Ruthian.

From every legit source I've read regarding Bonds alleged steroid use, he took a solid cocktail from 99-01, and then turned to undetectables ( which I've heard don't provide the same results as the " regulars ") afterwards because of testing. The ones he used prior to 02, the illegal detectable ones, were around for everyone to use - and the undetectable ones he allegedly used later were around for everyone to use. So I fail to see how he took drugs nobody had the advantage of taking - Every single drug he allegedly used was available to the general public, and most certainly was used by many many ballplayers/pitchers during his time. The amounts he used? He stacked, what steroid user doesn't stack?

Then, there's the age he used, which some claim is the best time to use it - Though I fail to see how an older athlete would benefit from PED'S more than a younger athlete already in his physical prime. A while ago on ESPN classic I had seen a special on steroids where two men who've used anabolics for years claimed to have reaped the most benefits during their physical primes - They were already in tip top shape, and adding PED'S to the mix brought them to the highest level. Heck, Jose Canseco has said the best steroids ever helped him was in his physical prime. And this guy was an expert on getting the best benefits from these drugs - According to him, he was so good at using them, and helping others use them, that he could of turned Ben Grieve into a super star.

So, IMO, this is Bonds case

He was still in his physical prime when he started using ( at age 34 in 1999), and was going to maintain his elite peak production during the 1990's well into his late 30's, and even early 40's, without PED'S, like Roger Clemens and Hank Aaron were able to do. It's quite possible that even without illegal PED'S, he could of had a few of his best seasons in his late 30's, like a Randy Johnson did. They just wouldn't however be Ruthian. THAT'S what happened to Bonds, IMO. From 99-04, he still would of been one of the leagues best, and maybe the best once or twice.

This is all speculation of course, but reasonable, IMO.

Sure its reasonable speculation and so is the speculation that Bonds would have had a predictable decline without his alleged PED use. Plausable reality is a two way street.

And if you didn't see Randy Johnson's decline the past two years in NY your weren't watching baseball. As a Sox fan I was sad to see him traded.

[Skin & Bones]

Actually, naturally they do. Exactly when and to what degree depends on many things, but yes, eventually they decline, and the reason for that is the physical elevator plummeting. Its at that point, that no matter how many years of knowledge/experience you have under your belt, you just can't physically do what you once could. Why is Bonds' situation unique. Because he started using when he still had physical tools, but when those physical tools had been on a plateau, and shortly they would have been declining. What he did after '98 is a complete joke. He became a physical specimen that he never could have been in his natural peak AND had all the experience/knowledge under his belt. That lethal combo of both elevators being so high is NOT crap, and it IS what led to those Ruthian numberes. Would he have had few, maybe even four productive seasons post '98, sure imo, but eventually there would have been a decline. No getting around that.

Again, I agree he wouldn't put up Ruthian Numbers - But who's to say he would of declined?

Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson ( until recently, in his 40's), maintained their elite prime productions well into their late 30's, and 40's, and in Johnson's case got better. This happened in an ERA you yourself says is a complete nightmare for pitchers, yet these two managed to pull it off. My point is, it's been done before, so there's no reason to believe it wouldn't have been done again - Especially someone like Bonds who is very body conscious.

Again, I agree that there is a difference between elite and hitting like Babe Ruth, however, it doesn't prove that Bonds would of declined - He could of pulled a Clemens, and maintained his elite production well into his late 30's and early 40's, or maybe even a Randy Johnson and improved somewhat with age.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sure its reasonable speculation and so is the speculation that Bonds would have had a predictable decline without his alleged PED use. Plausable reality is a two way street.


Gosh, what makes you say that ESPN? Perhaps over 100 years of proof? Oh but Bonds was that special :rolleyes:

[Skin & Bones]

So he wasn't an MLB Caliber pitcher when he was in the league from 1989 to 1996? I bet thats news to him. The other possibility which you shockingly don't mention is that he was a starter and then transitioned to a reliver. How many mediocre starters have we seem become good bullpen guys. And its funny you go out of your way not to mention HGH. I wonder why that is.

Actually, prior to Steroids/HGH/Greenies, he averaged about the same amount of IP as he did after 1999 - With the exception of 1996. So, his workload didn't cut down...and he managed to get MUCH better.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But who's to say he would of declined?


BECAUSE HE IS HUMAN, LIKE ALL OTHERS BEFORE HIM.

My own opinion is that his fielding and baserunning would have suffered while his offense would have remained good from ages 34-37. At age 38 though, the age factor kicks in and the three year decline period would occur. That to me, is for more likely than your scenario of him never declining until like 45 or whatever. Get real for once and abandon your bias, por favor. You can stop comparing Bonds to pitchers, and those who say "well others were using too" can take that all away. Pointing that out does nothing but prove how little they know about how unique Bonds' situation was. He was a top 20 guy anyway. With the help, his post '98 numbers put ALL TIME GREATS who had ALL TIME DECLINES to shame.

[Skin & Bones]

BECAUSE HE IS HUMAN, LIKE ALL OTHERS BEFORE HIM.

My own opinion is that his fielding and baserunning would have suffered while his offense would have remained good from ages 34-37. At age 38 though, the age factor kicks in and the three year decline period would occur. That to me, is for more likely than your scenario of him never declining until like 45 or whatever. Get real for once and abandon your bias, por favor. You can stop comparing Bonds to pitchers, and those who say "well others were using too" can take that all away. Pointing that out does nothing but prove how little they know about how unique Bonds' situation was.

Alright, so Clemens isn't human, and Randy Johnson suddenly became human at age 40, gotcha.

And I'm not " biased " - I'm not a Giants fan, not black, not related to him. There's no reason for me to be biased towards Bonds. I stick to the facts, and when adjusting for steroids for a batter, Bonds or anyone, no matter how " unique " you claim their situation is, I need to look at everything as a whole, including steroids benefits for pitchers.

So we'll agree to disagree then - Both on steroids benefits for pitchers, and the Bonds situation.

And for the last time, not declining and still putting up elite numbers is different from Ruthian Numbers, which I already agreed on, LOL.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Alright, so Clemens isn't human, and Randy Johnson suddenly became human at age 40, gotcha.


What makes you think they're all natural?

I need to look at everything as a whole, including steroids benefits for pitchers.


You've proven that you're not willing to look at everything as a whole. If you had done that, you'd understand what makes Bonds' situation so unique, and adjust accordingly. Steroid benefits for pitchers? Sure there are some, no doubt. How many benefits are there for hitters in the game that don't even involve steroids? A TON. And that's before the juice is factored in.

[ESPNFan]

Actually, prior to Steroids/HGH/Greenies, he averaged about the same amount of IP as he did after 1999 - With the exception of 1996. So, his workload didn't cut down...and he managed to get MUCH better.

Nobody said his workload was cut. But when you spread those innings out between 65-70 appearences as opposed to 10-15 when he was a starter he became a better pitcher as well. Again how many mediocre starters have we watched thrive out of the bullpen upon that transition?

[Skin & Bones]

What makes you think they're all natural?

I don't have proof that they aren't, well, Clemens there's some, but not enough to Dock him accordingly ( atleast, IMO).



You've proven that you're not willing to look at everything as a whole. If you had done that, you'd understand what makes Bonds' situation so unique, and adjust accordingly. Steroid benefits for pitchers? Sure there are some, no doubt. How many benefits are there for hitters in the game that don't even involve steroids? A TON. And that's before the juice is factored in.

I've studied Bonds situation since 2002 actually, ever since I read this article.

http://longgandhi.com/102502.html

I've read Game of Shadows, Jeff Pearlman's book, and nearly everything written on the steroid scandal, and PED'S in general. I've read many studies about steroids benefits for athletes. Your theory isn't proven by the facts. Lots of athletes use PED'S at an older age, in many sports. There's nothing unique about Bonds, in terms of benefitting from PED'S. All his recent production points to is a super athlete still in his physical prime increasing his overall power production, and maintaining a Ruthian level, instead of maintaing an elite Mantle/Aaron level, which was his last PED free season in 1998. Wee Willie or whatever back in the history forum did a decent analysis of Bonds 99-04 without PED'S - and he came to the conclusion that without the juice, he would be among the best, just not Babe Ruth. And that's a HUGE difference, because as a hitter Ruth has seperated himself from everyone in baseball history with the exception of Williams.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I don't have proof that they aren't, well, Clemens there's some, but not enough to Dock him accordingly ( atleast, IMO).





I've studied Bonds situation since 2002 actually, ever since I read this article.

http://longgandhi.com/102502.html

I've read Game of Shadows, Jeff Pearlman's book, and nearly everything written on the steroid scandal, and PED'S in general. I've read many studies about steroids benefits for athletes. Your theory isn't proven by the facts. Lots of athletes use PED'S at an older age, in many sports. There's nothing unique about Bonds, in terms of benefitting from PED'S. All his recent production points to is a super athlete still in his physical prime increasing his overall power production, and maintaining a Ruthian level, instead of maintaing an elite Mantle/Aaron level, which was his last PED season in 1998. Wee Willie or whatever back in the history forum did a decent analysis of Bonds 99-04 without PED'S - and he came to the conclusion that without the juice, he would be among the best, just not Babe Ruth. And that's a HUGE difference, because as a hitter Ruth has seperated himself from everyone in baseball history with the exception of Williams.

What don't you get about this. It's pretty simple.

A top 20 player with LOADS of talent is approaching an age where his production would not naturally increase. Could he maintain Frank Robinson type production for a few more years, sure he could. He was that good of a player to not have the ages 34-37 affect him like many others. That is a far cry from doing what he did though, and those better than normal years would MOST CERTAINLY be followed by a decline phase.

What do you see when you look at his numbers pre '99 and post '99? You don't see anything absurd about them? His AB/HR ratio would not have improved the way it did. His SA was like 150 points higher over that stretch. Just ridiculous.

[Skin & Bones]

What don't you get about this. It's pretty simple.

A top 20 player with LOADS of talent is approaching an age where his production would not naturally increase. Could he maintain Frank Robinson type production for a few more years, sure he could. He was that good of a player to not have the ages 34-37 affect him like many others. That is a far cry from doing what he did though, and those better than normal years would MOST CERTAINLY be followed by a decline phase.

What do you see when you look at his numbers pre '99 and post '99? You don't see anything absurd about them? His AB/HR ratio would not have improved the way it did. His SA was like 150 points higher over that stretch. Just ridiculous.

Sultan, I don't think you realize that I'm agreeing with you. Maintaining a Frank Robinson like Production in his late 30's, and maybe early 40's is certainly much different than hitting like Ruth. I totally agree. That however doesn't disprove what I'm saying, which is without the juice he could of still been among the best in the league, just not like Ruth. I see the difference, and I agree that steroids aided him greatly. All I believe is that without steroids, he's still a top ten player, and at his peak even prior to 1999 he was among the best ever - That doesn't however make him the best player since Ruth, and that's where the docking post 98 needs to be done. The difference between Ruth, IMO, and my second player ( Mays), is larger than my difference between Mays, and my tenth player Musial. So, IMO, numerically ranking Bonds with no steroid adjustment - He's right there up with Ruth, and is arguably better ( and the statistics seem to agree). With an adjustment, he's still top ten, but not near Ruth like he would be with no steroid adjustment.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Seems the only thing we disagree about is when his natural decline would have taken place. To think he'd maintain at 38 years old and beyond...just not realistic imo. And I never mentioned Ruth's name outside of using the term "Ruthian" to describe a level of performance, so I'm not sure why your post basically centered on him. Nobody should be worried about Bonds being anywhere near Ruth. Couldn't hold his jock naturally in avg, pwr, or arm and while much better in his youth and prime on the bases and the field, he declined out there some time ago; basically traded that for becoming Ted Williams at the dish. His numbers were certainly fueled by walks since he didn't have a chance for the law of averages to kick in...but the scary thing is how many more homers and such, he would have had, if not for the walks. Seriously, that 73 HR season could have been about 85 or 90 if he was pitched to...and then how many would claim steroids don't help, lol.

[Skin & Bones]

Seems the only thing we disagree about is when his natural decline would have taken place. To think he'd maintain at 38 years old and beyond...just not realistic imo.

Alright, fine then. I guess it isn't possible for him, but for others? Sure.


And I never mentioned Ruth's name outside of using the term "Ruthian" to describe a level of performance, so I'm not sure why your post basically centered on him. Nobody should be worried about Bonds being anywhere near Ruth. Couldn't hold his jock naturally in avg, pwr, or arm and while much better in his youth and prime on the bases and the field, he declined out there some time ago; basically traded that for becoming Ted Williams at the dish. His numbers were certainly fueled by walks since he didn't have a chance for the law of averages to kick in...but the scary thing is how many more homers and such, he would have had, if not for the walks. Seriously, that 73 HR season could have been about 85 or 90 if he was pitched to...and then how many would claim steroids don't help, lol.

Actually, I brought up Ruth, because at first you seemed to not understand what I was saying. Hitting like Ruth is completely different from being among the elite. I believe Bonds would of been among the elite in his later years without PED'S, just not hitting like Ruth. For the last time, that's the difference. I'm not " worried " about him being compared to Ruth, I'm just pointing out that without a steroid discount MOST people ( and the statistics back it up) would rank him right next to your boy, or even infront - So the steroid discount people give him that DROPS HIM from being next to Ruth in terms of value IS ENOUGH for many people, including myself.

That's the point I'm trying to get across to you. Oh, and I don't know of anyone that believes steroids don't " help ", but I do know some who believe Amphetamines don't help despite evidence showing the complete opposite.

[Skin & Bones]

Nobody said his workload was cut. But when you spread those innings out between 65-70 appearences as opposed to 10-15 when he was a starter he became a better pitcher as well.[QUOTE]


Actually, his appearances at the relief role were about the same as in the starting role, as well as the fact that he had as many multiple inning games in his steroid run, compared to his " clean " run.

I also took a look at the Neyer/James Guide to pitchers book, and found this interesting tidbit.

[QUOTE]1995:Fastball (86-88)

2001/2003:Fastball (mid-90's)

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Without attempting to project, estimate what Barry late in his career may have performed like, without using steroids, that is if he did, just some numbers to indicate why some eye brows were raised, why some wondered. How could this guy late in his career take off the way he did.

I posted some numbers on another thread Statistics and Analysis under the thread PCA REQUEST LINE post #624, if anyone cares to look at. Some comparisons at that other thread, Ruth, Williams and Barry, how they performed between the age of 36 to 40.

Here is a portion of that post, some other comparisons, Barry late in his career compared to Ruth and Williams in some prime years.

------------------------------BA.---------Slg.-----------OBA--------RC/G
Bonds----Age 36-40---------.347---------.805-----------.556--------19.32
Williams--Age 27-31---------.345---------.643-----------.496--------13.54
Ruth----Age 26-30----------.357---------.728-----------.490---------14.34

The above comparison of the 3 at different ages is even more of an eye opener than the 3 of them at the same age between 36 to 40.

At the age of 36 to 40 Barry out performs two of the greatest hitter/ sluggers to play the game when they were in their prime, Williams age 27 to 31 and Ruth age 26 to 30, except for batting average, Ruth .357. No wonder some had to wonder, what happened here, the numbers Barry put up late in his career. I used 27 to 31 for Ted because he was in the service when 26.

[ESPNFan]

Actually, his appearances at the relief role were about the same as in the starting role, as well as the fact that he had as many multiple inning games in his steroid run, compared to his " clean " run.

I also took a look at the Neyer/James Guide to pitchers book, and found this interesting tidbit.

His relief appearances were absolutely not the same as his starting role.
Per Basebal-Refrence.com (correct me if my math is wrong.)
From 1989 to 1996 he had 101 appearences and pitched 426 innings.

From 1999 to 2006 he had 451 appearences and piched 510 2/3 innings.

Your wrong about his workload.

[Skin & Bones]

His relief appearances were absolutely not the same as his starting role.
Per Basebal-Refrence.com (correct me if my math is wrong.)
From 1989 to 1996 he had 101 appearences and pitched 426 innings.

From 1999 to 2006 he had 451 appearences and piched 510 2/3 innings.

Your wrong about his workload.

ESPNFan - You are correct. My mistake. I ran a query on MYSQL ( Which I'm still learning, BTW), and it spit out different results than what it says on Baseballreference.com, or the Sinnis Encyclopedia, which I just checked when I saw your post.

[Skin & Bones]

Be that as it may, performing in relief may have aided him, but to what extent is unknown. You should also note that Grimsley's Batted Balls were fielded more often starting in 99 compared to before. Here's a Graph from the Hardballtimes illustrating that - http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/graphs_602_pitcher_season_8_blog_20060607.png

[Williamsburg2599]

Bonds on McGwire, Rose, and an update on the contract situation:
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/ivp/index?catname=mlb&id=2734447