stick a fork in bonds, he's done

[fenrir]

the man is going to jail.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330742,00.html

[runningshoes]

So there is a baseball God. :homeplate:

With any luck, Bonds and Clemens will be sharing a cell.

[fenrir]

So there is a baseball God. :homeplate:

With any luck, Bonds and Clemens will be sharing a cell.

....:rofl:

[Doctor X]

Since he will go to prison he is, indeed, done.

--J.D.

[DoubleX]

Did Bonds ever deny under oath having failed a steroids test (or knowledge of failing)? If not, this doesn't prove much that he perjured. He'll stick to his story that he used the cream and whatever without knowing the substances contained steroids. Bonds' story is that he never knowingly used steroids, so they'll have to prove that he did knowingly use steroids. The failed drug test doesn't by itself prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly did steroids, and it is still possible, although unlikely, but possible enough to raise a reasonable doubt, that the failed test was the result of using substances which he did not know had steroids.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Why is this just now being released if he failed a test six years ago? That's what I don't understand.

[runningshoes]

So he must have unknowingly failed the test and continued to unknowingly use the steroids.

Is that what you're driving at?

If so, you had better get a good grip on that steering wheel, unless, of course, you're unknowingly headed towards that cliff.

[DoubleX]

So he must have unknowingly failed the test and continued to unknowingly use the steroids.

Is that what you're driving at?

If so, you had better get a good grip on that steering wheel, unless, of course, you're unknowingly headed towards that cliff.

I don't know the specifics of what's going on with Bonds because I lost interest a while ago. But from my memory, the issue here is whether Bonds lied during his BALCO Grand Jury testimony, right? Didn't he say then that he used the substances but didn't know they had steroids when he used them, or was that only Gary Sheffield? If Bonds is on trial for denying for stating he never knowingly took steroids, the government will have to prove that he did knowingly take steroids. A failed test by itself does not prove that he did know (even though you and I and most everyone else believes he did know).

I guess I need to know what sworn statement by Bonds does the government claim was a lie? If it's simply, "I never used steroids" then yes, a failed test would go a long way to proving he lied. However, if it's something like "I never knowingly used steroids," which my admittedly flawed memory remembers, then a failed test wouldn't do much by itself.

[Doctor X]

So he must have unknowingly failed the test and continued to unknowingly use the steroids.

Is that what you're driving at?

If so, you had better get a good grip on that steering wheel, unless, of course, you're unknowingly headed towards that cliff.

FLAWLESS VICTORY!!

Indeed.

--J.D.

[runningshoes]

I don't know the specifics of what's going on with Bonds because I lost interest a while ago. But from my memory, the issue here is whether Bonds lied during his BALCO Grand Jury testimony, right? Didn't he say then that he used the substances but didn't know they had steroids when he used them, or was that only Gary Sheffield? If Bonds is on trial for denying for stating he never knowingly took steroids, the government will have to prove that he did knowingly take steroids. A failed test by itself does not prove that he did know (even though you and I and most everyone else believes he did know).

I guess I need to know what sworn statement by Bonds does the government claim was a lie? If it's simply, "I never used steroids" then yes, a failed test would go a long way to proving he lied. However, if it's something like "I never knowingly used steroids," which my admittedly flawed memory remembers, then a failed test wouldn't do much by itself.

I'm assuming BALCO performed the test and if so, I can't imagine a scenario where he wouldn't have been informed of the failure.

Now, If MLB performed the test, that's a different ball game altogether.

[Skin & Bones]

What was reported was a mistake.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Federal prosecutors mistakenly filed court papers Thursday that incorrectly stated that Barry Bonds failed a steroids test in November of 2001 -- one month after breaking the single-season home run mark.

U.S. attorney spokesman Josh Eaton now says that the reference in Thursday's government court filing regarding Bonds testing positive was actually referring to a November 2000 test that was previously disclosed in the indictment of Bonds and had already been reported.

In December, Bonds pleaded not guilty to lying to a federal grand jury in 2003 when he denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

The mistake prompted a flurry of reports on television and Web sites -- including ESPN.com -- around the country.

The filing amounted to federal prosecutors defending their questioning of Bonds before a grand jury, and urging a judge to keep the slugger's perjury prosecution on track.

Bonds had argued that the questions posed to him by prosecutors were ambiguous and confusing. He demanded that the five-count indictment charging him with lying to a grand jury be tossed out. Bonds has pleaded not guilty.

In the filing, prosecutors said Bonds was specifically told before he began testifying in 2003 that he could consult with his lawyers or ask for a question rephrased if he ever got confused.

"Bonds never said he was confused or asked the prosecutor to rephrase a question," the government's filing stated.

Instead, they said their questions left no doubt that they were asking Bonds about his drug use and his relationship with personal trainer Greg Anderson.

Prosecutors said "as the evidence at trial will show, each count charges that Bonds repeatedly lied in answering the same question or questions on the same subject matter."

The matter will be the subject of a court hearing Feb. 29.



http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3246675

[Zito75]

This is just an out & out fiasco. Is there any truth to any side now? What an utter mess... Train wreck!

[Go Cardinals]

Did Bonds ever deny under oath having failed a steroids test (or knowledge of failing)? If not, this doesn't prove much that he perjured. He'll stick to his story that he used the cream and whatever without knowing the substances contained steroids. Bonds' story is that he never knowingly used steroids, so they'll have to prove that he did knowingly use steroids. The failed drug test doesn't by itself prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly did steroids, and it is still possible, although unlikely, but possible enough to raise a reasonable doubt, that the failed test was the result of using substances which he did not know had steroids.

Your 100% correct...

[Old Sweater]

What was reported was a mistake.



http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3246675



You can quit dong cartwheels in jubilation now Fenrir.

[Doctor X]

How does this become a "win" for Bonds?

--J.D.

[west coast orange and black]

xx: Did Bonds ever deny under oath having failed a steroids test (or knowledge of failing)?

nope.

[Doctor X]

Did Bonds ever deny under oath using steroids?

Given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates.

--J.D.

[west coast orange and black]

xx: the issue here is whether Bonds lied during his BALCO Grand Jury testimony, right?

correct.

.. .. .. .. ..


Didn't he say then that he used the substances but didn't know they had steroids when he used them?

bonds has not ever stated that he used either "the cream" or "clear" / "the clear." the feds believe hat he did but have not been able to determine the contents of the substances that bonds actualy used.

.. .. .. .. ..

I guess I need to know what sworn statement by Bonds does the government claim was a lie?

q: "well, when you say you don't think [anderson] would [give steroids to you], to your knowledge, i mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave to you?"

a: "not that i know of."

q: "in the weeks and months leading up to november 2000 were you taking steroids--"

a: "no."

q: "--or anything like that?"

a: "no, i wasn't at all."

q: were you obtaining testosterone from mr, anderson during [december 2001]?"

a: "not at all."

q: an were you taking any other steroids?"

a: "no."

then there are questions concerning human growth hormone and injections, and a few more directly about steroids.

it has already been posed by the bonds camp that bonds' initial "not that i know of" holds for the questions asked of him after that. that is, that all of bonds' answers include an unspoken "unknowingly."

.. .. .. .. ..

the november 2007 indictment includes that investigators had possession of "positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for bonds." so what's the news here?

[west coast orange and black]

runningshoes: I'm assuming BALCO performed the test...

uh-uh. quest laboratories did.

[west coast orange and black]

doctor x: Given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates.

the assumption here is that balco told bonds of the results from quest lab.

[Doctor X]

Your assumption is that they did not.

Your quotation of his testimony above helps demonstrate why the Feds know the test is important.

--J.D.

[Mattingly]

doctor x: Given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates.

the assumption here is that balco told bonds of the results from quest lab.
I'm curious, can you fill me in on the details, please? Was this 2000 test performed by BALCO? At MLB's insistence (or scheduling)? Did Barry Bonds in fact fail this test (testing "positive")? Who was BALCO expected to report the findings of the test to? Was the player (Bonds) expected to be told the test results?

Thanks. :)

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm only going to say this once. Threads of this nature, where someone says so and so is going to jail, is going to have this happen to them is going to have that happen to them, are out. Until there is a conviction and sentencing then you can post like this. But speculation of this nature is not going to happen. You want to use this site and forum as your own player-hating speculation rant, get your own blog. Not in this forum!

[KCGHOST]

The Bonds threads are exactly like the old Pete Rose threads before he came clean. His defenders, abandoning any concept of common sense and decency, would grasp at any straw, twist any fact, and attack the veracity of the accusers to maintain the innocence of their guy.

And just like Rose's defenders when Bonds finally comes clean they will mutter how they were betrayed. And a few years later they will take up the cause again.

[whoisonit]

The Bonds threads are exactly like the old Pete Rose threads before he came clean. His defenders, abandoning any concept of common sense and decency, would grasp at any straw, twist any fact, and attack the veracity of the accusers to maintain the innocence of their guy.

And just like Rose's defenders when Bonds finally comes clean they will mutter how they were betrayed. And a few years later they will take up the cause again.

You can replace 'Bonds' with 'Clemens' and it makes this observation twice as correct.

[west coast orange and black]

doctor x: Your assumption is that they did not.
come again?
you stated, "given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates," while i have not made any claims one way or the other.


Your quotation of his testimony above helps demonstrate why the Feds know the test is important.
agreed. but i do not yet have a conclusion, as do you.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: Was this 2000 test performed by BALCO?
no. by quest laboratories.

At MLB's insistence (or scheduling)?
no. mlb was unaware of the testing panels.

Did Barry Bonds in fact fail this test (testing "positive")?
federal prosecutors believe so.

Who was BALCO expected to report the findings of the test to?
balco was quest's client; balco ordered the tests. it is reasonable that that is as far as it needs to go. no?

Was the player (Bonds) expected to be told the test results?
*shaking magic 8 ball* my sources say "no."

[west coast orange and black]

kcghost: [Bonds'] defenders, abandoning any concept of common sense and decency, would grasp at any straw, twist any fact, and attack the veracity of the accusers to maintain the innocence of their guy.

And just like Rose's defenders when Bonds finally comes clean they will mutter how they were betrayed. And a few years later they will take up the cause again.

twist ... attack ... abandon common sense and decency ... just where is this all taking place?
and, what else does the future hold?

[Mattingly]

Mattingly: Was this 2000 test performed by BALCO?
no. by quest laboratories.

At MLB's insistence (or scheduling)?
no. mlb was unaware of the testing panels.

Did Barry Bonds in fact fail this test (testing "positive")?
federal prosecutors believe so.

Who was BALCO expected to report the findings of the test to?
balco was quest's client; balco ordered the tests. it is reasonable that that is as far as it needs to go. no?

Was the player (Bonds) expected to be told the test results?
*shaking magic 8 ball* my sources say "no."
Thanks for your replies to this. :)

A few more questions:

Since Quest Labs was a BALCO client, and they'd asked for Bonds to take this test for them, why did they ask him to do so? What I'm trying to find out is, are the federal prosecutors of Bonds trying to say that they were checking around to see if their (BALCO's) drugs were not being shown as testing positive? As in BALCO's making sure that whatever they'd allegedly given him was in fact not giving a "positive" reading by a PED testing lab.

Has Quest Labs ever done any work with MLB and/or any other well-known pro or amateur leagues before (NBA, NFL, NHL, IOC, MLS, etc)? Since I'm unfamiliar with them, I'm trying to find out what kind of PED testing they routinely do. Any info on this you can provide, I would greatly appreciate. :)

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: Since Quest Labs was a BALCO client, and they'd asked for Bonds to take this test for them, why did they ask him to do so?
balco was quest's client, not vice-versa; quest performed testing on behalf of balco, not bonds. bonds was not quest's client. it could very well be that bonds was unaware that balco outsourced testing.

What I'm trying to find out is, are the federal prosecutors of Bonds trying to say that they were checking around to see if their (BALCO's) drugs were not being shown as testing positive? As in BALCO's making sure that whatever they'd allegedly given him was in fact not giving a "positive" reading by a PED testing lab.
"not being shown as testing positive"... hmm... the feds would not hafta go far to get that information: the great majority of balco's substances for sale were 100% legit.
re bonds exclusively: quest is the nation's premeire testing company. their threshold of expertise is not surpassed. it is posible and even likely that balco: (a) wanted to know outright if bonds would test positive and/or (b) wanted a second opinion.

Has Quest Labs ever done any work with MLB and/or any other well-known pro or amateur leagues before (NBA, NFL, NHL, IOC, MLS, etc)?
they've done everybody.

Since I'm unfamiliar with them, I'm trying to find out what kind of PED testing they routinely do.
well, they are capable of testing for every known substance... and even for stuff that has only recently hit the market.

[Mattingly]

wcoab:

What kind of tests did Quest Labs perform on Bonds (blood, urine, etc), and when were these done?

You'd mentioned it being likely that BALCO wanted to insure that Bonds wouldn't have a "positive" test if Quest Labs tested him. Is it possible that BALCO had him test several times, to insure that something they'd given him would not come back as "positive", but would instead fly "under the radar" (meaning "undetectable")?

So you're saying that since Bonds may not have known that BALCO outsourced their testing (perhaps to get a "second opinion", as you'd stated), then BALCO would likely have sent the 2nd urine and/or blood samples to Quest Labs to confirm their results w/o Bonds' knowledge of this?

[Doctor X]

West Coast Orange and Black:

Methinks you need a better source than your Eight-Ball and your assumption Bonds did not learn the results of a test.

--J.D.

[Mattingly]

West Coast Orange and Black:

Methinks you need a better source than your Eight-Ball and your assumption Bonds did not learn the results of a test.

--J.D.
Why do you feel that better sources are required?

I may seem naive, but what exactly is "Eight-Ball"?

[Doctor X]

Why do you feel that better sources are required?

I may seem naive, but what exactly is "Eight-Ball"?

See his quote above.

--J.D.

[whoisonit]

I may seem naive, but what exactly is "Eight-Ball"?

I think he means 'magic eight ball'. A crapy kids toy that is fun for about 3 minutes and has been around forever. Then again, eight-ball is also a term for a measure of crack cocaine.

So he's either saying your source is the always dependably non-commital magic eight ball, or you're smokimg crack.

35746

or

35747

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: What kind of tests did Quest Labs perform on Bonds (blood, urine, etc), and when were these done?it is alleged that balco sent blood samples to quest. that seems to be correct.

You'd mentioned it being likely that BALCO wanted to insure that Bonds wouldn't have a "positive" test if Quest Labs tested him. Is it possible that BALCO had him test several times, to insure that something they'd given him would not come back as "positive", but would instead fly "under the radar" (meaning "undetectable")?
i have not ever stated that balco sent samples to quest "to insure that bonds wouldn't have a "positive" test." i said that it is likely that balco had already tested bonds and wanted a second/more reliable (?) determination +/or sought to discover results from testing of bonds.
balco absolutely had bonds tested by quest numerous times. for what reason, exactly, uh, i dunno.

So you're saying that since Bonds may not have known that BALCO outsourced their testing (perhaps to get a "second opinion", as you'd stated), then BALCO would likely have sent the 2nd urine and/or blood samples to Quest Labs to confirm their results w/o Bonds' knowledge of this?
it is possible that balco did not test bonds themselves. so balco might not have known bonds' status 'til they received quest's results.
conte was probably very concerned about his star client and wanted current detection status, hence the multiple tests by quest.
in all of the mountain of evidence confiscated by the feds, they have exactly one test result with a positive outcome. because bonds was tested numerous times, it is possible that if in fact he did use, he did so for only a short period of time / not many times.

[west coast orange and black]

doctor x: WCOAB:
Methinks you need a better source than your Eight-Ball and your assumption Bonds did not learn the results of a test.

dude.
"magic 8 ball" appeared as *magic 8 ball*... please read between the lines.
also, because you might be new to this party, please know that i have no assumptions regarding the bonds case.
none.

[west coast orange and black]

whoisonit: he's either saying your source is the always dependably non-commital magic eight ball, or you're smokimg crack.

just how did "he" (me, wcoab) become "you" (Mattingly)?

the magic 8 ball toy has 20 answers... on which none of them i rely.

[Doctor X]

Actually, I assumed when West Coast Orange and Black referenced his Eight-Ball, he referred to his not-so-loyal henchman:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/DoctorX_photos/MagicEightBall-1.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/DoctorX_photos/MagicEightBall-2.jpg

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

please read between the lines.

Appears I have successfully.

also, because you might be new to this party, please know that i have no assumptions regarding the bonds case.

I can only judge what you write.

--J.D.

[Boston Boxer]

So there is a baseball God. :homeplate:

With any luck, Bonds and Clemens will be sharing a cell.

Clemens wont go to jail. He is friends with the Bush's and half of Congress. The whole thing is a flim flam farce

[Doctor X]

Insert your political conspiracy theory here: ____________________

--J.D.

[west coast orange and black]

wcoab: please read between the lines.

doctor x: Appears I have successfully.

uh, no. not even close.

.. .. .. .. ..

wcoab: because you might be new to this party, please know that i have no assumptions regarding the bonds case.
none

doctor x: I can only judge what you write.

"judge". that speaks volumes.

[west coast orange and black]

this is not an answer of a magic 8 ball.

*concentrate and ask again*

[Doctor X]

uh, no. not even close.

Ipse dixit but incorrect, and the error remains yours.

"judge". that speaks volumes.

This is a written medium.

If you are disappointed with the reception of your correspondence, you would do well to exercise greater care with its creation. Towards that end you may consider researching the utility of the "shift" key. Capitalization assists in clarity. The pretentiously excretal "e. e. cummings" proved inaccurate claiming he "wrote like the Greek did," since they utilized ALL CAPITALS, OR "MAJUSCULES, THOUGHTHEYACTUALLYCOMPOSEDINSCRIPTUACONTINUAWITHOU TPUNCTUATIONWHCHSNMPRVMNTVRTHRFRMSTHTLCKVWLS

--J.D.

[west coast orange and black]

doctor x: This is a written medium.
any other eye openers for me?

If you are disappointed with the reception of your correspondence...
not disappointed, but amused.

cummings proved inaccurate claiming he "wrote like the Greek did"...
agreed. he ought to have gone with "as the greek did".
you seem to be fixated with the useage of upper and lower cases (cummings used both, by the way) rather than the fact that cummings was both essayist and poet.
it figures though, that you, who judges, allows type to get in the way of message.

[runningshoes]

Clemens wont go to jail. He is friends with the Bush's and half of Congress. The whole thing is a flim flam farce

Who cares.

This thing he created will follow close behind him until he is in his grave.

Am I being a little harsh?

I saw him pitch at Fenway in '91. I cherished the rather poor quality pictures I took of him on the mound.

Now they go out with the rest of the refuse.

Thanks for the memories, Rog.

[Doctor X]

any other eye openers for me?

See above.

not disappointed, but amused.

Your failure is not amusing.

you seem to be fixated with the useage [Sic--Ed.] of upper and lower cases (cummings used both, by the way) rather than the fact that cummings was both essayist and poet.

It appears your failure to comprehend is a syndrome rather than an isolated incident. I merely note that your failure at the basics seem connected to your overall failure with communication. That you do not care merely affirms you lack the respect readers necessary to succeed in communication. As such, your complaints regarding how your words are read prove deliciously hypocritical.

Blames the reader for his failure to communicate.

Sorry to make you cry.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

This thing he created will follow close behind him until he is in his grave.

I saw him pitch at Fenway in '91. I cherished the rather poor quality pictures I took of him on the mound.

Now they go out with the rest of the refuse.

Thanks for the memories, Rog.

Game. Set. Match.

On another thread over in the section devoted to the Glorious Red Sox [PBUT--Ed.] I related the feelings of a friend who is a serious Yankees fan. He was devastated by the revelations of Clemens, but not in a "Yankees vs. Red Sox" way. He was not in the mood for the normal partisan jokes--and he had been the first to joke about Schillings' "painted sock" last season!

No, he was seriously upset.

Clemens, as he explained, was a player he followed and admired since he was a wee spud. He enjoyed his pitching when Clemens was a Red Sox; his achievements transcended the fan-partisanship. "Every kid, when they wanted to imagine being a pitcher, wanted to be Roger Clemens."

Indeed.

Now those memories seemed, to him, as lies.

--J.D.

[west coast orange and black]

doctor x: your complaints regarding how your words are read prove deliciously hypocritical.
i do not have complaints. to the contrary, i am being amused.

That you do not care merely affirms you lack the respect readers necessary to succeed in communication.
how did you arrive at this, that i do not care?
if i did not care, i would not have responded at all.
if i did not care, i would be indifferent towards you.

[Doctor X]

i do not have complaints.

Behavior demonstrates otherwise.

how did you arrive at this, that i do not care?

I refer the individual to the answer I gave previously and his behavior discussed extensively.

It is really not terribly complicated.

--J.D.

[Boston Boxer]

Who cares.

This thing he created will follow close behind him until he is in his grave.

Am I being a little harsh?

I saw him pitch at Fenway in '91. I cherished the rather poor quality pictures I took of him on the mound.

Now they go out with the rest of the refuse.

Thanks for the memories, Rog.

i care because it is a double standard. Clemens the hero gets off because everyone likes him and is willing to turn a blind eye...where Bonds the vilan gets fryed because nobody likes him and wants to see him go down. Both these guys did the same thing and are being treated very differently.

[Doctor X]

i care because it is a double standard.

Methinks his question was rhetorical; however, I do not see a double-standard. There are certainly blind Clemens fans and haters as there have been with Bonds. With Bonds, there has been far more time to digest the evidence such as that detailed in a book. Yet, there were plenty of "wonks" on, say, ESPN who would jump up and down about how Bonds did not have a positive steroid test.

If anything, the response to Clemens has been very negative from fans in general and even the "wonks" and legitimate sports writers. This is after less than a week.

It is too early in the process for both to see what will happen in the end, and it is far earlier for Clemens.

--J.D.

[runningshoes]

I understand where you're coming from and I agree there is a double standard.

[Doctor X]

Okay . . . explain.

--J.D.

[FatAngel]

Off topic, but maybe congress should simply revoke the antitrust exemption and move on from there - cases like Bonds would
be dwarves compared to other issues.

EDIT: just wanna´ say this was the first time I got edited (rightfully) in twelve years of posting on BB message boards ;)

[west coast orange and black]

doctor x: "failure at the basics seem connected to your overall failure with communication."
"That you do not care merely affirms you lack the respect readers necessary to succeed in communication."
"It is really not terribly complicated."

good day to you, dr.

[adamg]

Im surprised he is actually going to jail!

[Doctor X]

Well . . . he has not been convicted yet.

Nevertheless, given that Marion Jones settled for 6 months, if Bonds gets convicted, I do not see how he avoids jail time.

--J.D.

[cardsfanatic]

Do we honestly need 10 Clemens and 10 Bonds threads? I mean, I know the people engulfed in the steroid drama deserve a place to talk as well... however, how about the rest of us that'd like to actually talk about baseball? Just make a "STEROIDS" board and get it over with. It's ridiculous the same five people start a new steroid thread every 10 minutes... enough is enough.

[sandlot]

in all of the mountain of evidence confiscated by the feds, they have exactly one test result with a positive outcome. because bonds was tested numerous times, it is possible that if in fact he did use, he did so for only a short period of time / not many times.A single positive test would normally require a second test to rule out the possibility of a false positive, no?

[Doctor X]

Depends on the nature of the test.

Nevertheless, one's head does not grow in size secondary to usage for a "short period of time/ not many times."

FYI. . . .

--J.D.

[freshprince85]

So there is a baseball God. :homeplate:

With any luck, Bonds and Clemens will be sharing a cell.

I hope!!!
And I'm starting to puke if one of those :grouchy will ever be introduced into the HOF :eek:

[Mattingly]

i care because it is a double standard. Clemens the hero gets off because everyone likes him and is willing to turn a blind eye...where Bonds the vilan gets fryed because nobody likes him and wants to see him go down. Both these guys did the same thing and are being treated very differently.
I don't know about Clemens being a hero. He may not be as unpopular as Barry Bonds, but he never seemed like the highly beloved figure that Sammy Sosa was in 1998. Of the frequently accused, Sosa was the only one with the great smile and got lots of love from the general audience.

If people were willing to turn a blind eye to Roger Clemens, then why was his name in the Mitchell Report? Why did he testify in front of the US House, much to the criticism of many baseball fans who've openly said that his credibility was very low after that testimony. How is this seen as people "looking the other way"?

Bonds is on trial after the uproar begin following the 2001 season. Clemens is not yet presently on trial. Clemens had two former teammates (Pettitte and Knoblauch) agree that his accuser, Brian McNamee, had told the truth in the Mitchell Report when discussing themselves. Does Barry Bonds have two teammates who've agreed with his accuser?

Has Greg Anderson testified against Barry Bonds? Not in the Mitchell Report and not in the US House of Representatives against Bonds. In fact, Anderson was in jail and wasn't released until Bonds had been indicted.

Now if the situation were reversed, and it was Bonds who had the two teammates claiming that Anderson told the truth about themselves, and and Anderson called Bonds a liar, testified against Bonds in the Mitchell Report *AND* in the House, then gave physical evidence he'd kept on Bonds, would there still be allegations of a double standard?

To make things even more interesting, had it been Roger Clemens who had Brian McNamee being in jail the whole time but only released once the indictment had been set, and had Clemens said that he had not *KNOWINGLY* used steroids, which to me, is a total reverse of the present situation, would there still be cries of a double standard?

In my opinion, Bonds has a better chance to be acquitted, but Clemens, especially with his accuser agent and his teammates causing doubt on his credibility, has gotten the worst treatment. I'm not even hearing much about Bonds right now. Clemens, by comparison, is definitely in the hot seat.

[Mattingly]

I hope!!!
And I'm starting to puke if one of those :grouchy will ever be introduced into the HOF :eek:
We may need to see just how many PEDs that both have used. Clemens surely seems guilty of something, but just exactly what, I'm unsure of.

If either get in by >75% vote of the BBWAA, then that ugly blue/grey storm cloud will never be removed from atop their heads, and it certainly wouldn't be a halo either.

Still, those two accused seem to be the present names and faces of this unfortunate Steroids Era, and there have been many who've actually been tested and failed whose names are far less famous. One with 7 MVPs, the other with 7 CYAs. Both with lots to prove in the court of the people.

[Old Sweater]

Do we honestly need 10 Clemens and 10 Bonds threads? I mean, I know the people engulfed in the steroid drama deserve a place to talk as well... however, how about the rest of us that'd like to actually talk about baseball? Just make a "STEROIDS" board and get it over with. It's ridiculous the same five people start a new steroid thread every 10 minutes... enough is enough.


That wouldn't be fair to the members that like their name on the front page of CE. They would actually have to read though a thread seeing where to put their reply that they use for a thread title.:)

[whoisonit]

That wouldn't be fair to the members that like their name on the front page of CE. They would actually have to read though a thread seeing where to put their reply that they use for a thread title.:)

We live in a celebrity driven age. They're victims of the times. We shouldn't accuse them of not reading the threads, besides, many of them do read the threads and it's unfair to slander them all. The posters are all worth following, and now we're supposed to disregard them because someone like cardsfanatic is bashing them ? How do we even know when they stopped reading through them ? Besides, they used to read through them before they stopped reading through them. It is terrible to further heap injustice upon these poor victims without proof.:)

[Doctor X]

Is there any evidence they knowingly failed to read the thread?

--J.D.

[cardsfanatic]

We live in a celebrity driven age. They're victims of the times. We shouldn't accuse them of not reading the threads, besides, many of them do read the threads and it's unfair to slander them all. The posters are all worth following, and now we're supposed to disregard them because someone like cardsfanatic is bashing them ? How do we even know when they stopped reading through them ? Besides, they used to read through them before they stopped reading through them. It is terrible to further heap injustice upon these poor victims without proof.:)

Whoa, whoa, homeslice. I'm not bashing anyone and you can check the condescending tone at the door with the "someone like" line. You can dislike my opinions or you can love them. The fact does remain that actual baseball threads get constantly buried by steroid threads. Seriously, in the last five pages 70% of the threads are steroid related and most have 20 posts or less... why in the hell can those not be ONE thread? Do we really need a "Clemens congressional hearing thread discussion" followed by a thousand threads like "OHHHHHHH, MCNAMEE HAS EVIDENCE!" "OHHHHHHH< CLEMENS IS A LIAR!" -- why in the blue hell can those threads not be put in the congressional hearing thread, hmmm?

I'm not saying people cannot discuss steroids and I don't even have the power to stop what is going on. I'm just posing a general question to any moderators that read this kind of junk. I'd kinda like to discuss the upcoming baseball season but we're pretty short on baseball topics, it seems. As soon as one springs up it's piled on by ridiculous topics like this that could fit into any one of the thousand Bonds threads.

[cardsfanatic]

Addition: One of my favorite posts recently illustrated my point and I'd love to find it and link it. Had me busting at the sides. A guy started a topic about baseball and one of the guys who is all enthralled by the steroid saga asked him "what is the point in this thread?" to which the poster replied with his entire post copied and pasted and at the end "so, he's a steroid user!" or something along those lines. Classic stuff. It's so true it's funny and sad at the same time -- to be a relevant topic in this board lately it must have steroids somewhere in the body of the message.

[whoisonit]

cardsfanatic -

sent you a pm to clear up the missunderstanding !

By the way - what is a homeslice ?

[Doctor X]

Alien: Why do you devote so much literature to a simple biological function?

Kirk: We enjoy it.

It is the subject right now. On other fora devoted to say, politics, religion, or celebrity skin diseases, a "big topic" will explode and generate topics devoted to individual issues. Bonds having a positive test is a different element from whether or not Clemems committed perjury, et cetera.

Over time, the focus will change. Give it a month, this will die down, Spring Training will be in full gear with Opening Day around the corner . . . so the board will be filled with topics concerning what Bonds wore in the Federal Courthouse. . . .


:cap:

--J.D.

[whoisonit]

We live in a celebrity driven age. They're victims of the times. We shouldn't accuse them of not reading the threads, besides, many of them do read the threads and it's unfair to slander them all. The posters are all worth following, and now we're supposed to disregard them because someone like cardsfanatic is bashing them ? How do we even know when they stopped reading through them ? Besides, they used to read through them before they stopped reading through them. It is terrible to further heap injustice upon these poor victims without proof.:)

cardsfanatic - the quoted post is in reverence to this post by old sweater on a different thread.

Thread; Clemens asked to testify to Congress/ Upcoming Hearing
Post ; # 162

so don't have a cow

your friend -whoisonit -aka homeslice

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: A single positive test would normally require a second test to rule out the possibility of a false positive, no?

true, sandlot.
but if a second positive test result does exist somewhere out there, the feds do not have possession of it.

[cardsfanatic]

cardsfanatic -

sent you a pm to clear up the missunderstanding !

By the way - what is a homeslice ?

All good. A homeslice is a term from the 1980's, it's urban slang. It can be replaced with "buddy", "home boy" or a slew of other words. In the context I was using it in, however, I was admittedly being a smart ass. :)

[Old Sweater]

Addition: One of my favorite posts recently illustrated my point and I'd love to find it and link it. Had me busting at the sides. A guy started a topic about baseball and one of the guys who is all enthralled by the steroid saga asked him "what is the point in this thread?" to which the poster replied with his entire post copied and pasted and at the end "so, he's a steroid user!" or something along those lines. Classic stuff. It's so true it's funny and sad at the same time -- to be a relevant topic in this board lately it must have steroids somewhere in the body of the message.


I think you mean this one which is one of the best replys I've ever seen on a board. He got Mattingly good but he took it in stride as usual.

Jason Lane and Morgan Ensberg played college baseball together at the University of Southern California. Then in 2000 Ensberg made his way to the Houston Astros. Lane followed him two years later in 2002. After several years together Ensberg was dealt to the Padres in 2007. A few weeks later Lane was dealt to the Padres. After 2007 the Yankees signed a contract with Lane. And just now the Yankees signed Ensberg. Crazy, huh?



I'm curious, what were you thinking of doing with this thread? Were you mentioning it just for conversation's place? Did you wish to find some similar course of events?



I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game.

[Old Sweater]

We live in a celebrity driven age. They're victims of the times. We shouldn't accuse them of not reading the threads, besides, many of them do read the threads and it's unfair to slander them all. The posters are all worth following, and now we're supposed to disregard them because someone like cardsfanatic is bashing them ? How do we even know when they stopped reading through them ? Besides, they used to read through them before they stopped reading through them. It is terrible to further heap injustice upon these poor victims without proof.:)


Is there any evidence they knowingly failed to read the thread?

--J.D.


That wouldn't be fair to the members that like their name on the front page of CE. They would actually have to read though a thread seeing where to put their reply that they use for a thread title.:)




Like I said, it wouldn't be fair to them. I don't know for sure if they read the threads or not but I do know that their rants that they use for thread titles would fit in one of the other threads that have been started, on the topic they are pertaining to. Also there is a few posters that have more topics started then they have replys in their profile.

[sandlot]

sandlot: A single positive test would normally require a second test to rule out the possibility of a false positive, no?

true, sandlot.
but if a second positive test result does exist somewhere out there, the feds do not have possession of it.That's part of what I was trying to get at.

I've no doubt that lots of ballplayers -- and other athletes -- have recorded innumerable positive tests, but a certain percentage of those results have been found to be errant and were disproven by futher testing. So if the Feds, or somebody, have possession of a single "result," that may in itself be evidence of nothing. It could have been a false positive, a testing error, a tainted sample, who knows? The question is, do they have the record of the results of a followup test that was done to determine the accuracy of the initial rest result? Because if they don't, then what they have is essentially a meaningless piece of paper. However, if they had a second positive result, then Bonds would be in trouble.

You say the Feds don't possess a second result and I think that almost certainly must be the case because if they had two results, the case would be over. The other query is, when a test is done, is the sample retained for future testing, or is it disposed of? If the Feds have an actual sample that was tested just once, the option of further resting might exist, though it's easy to imagine some of the arguments that would be raised by the defense regarding reliability and admissability. In certain sense it doesn't matter, though, because the story has already done further damage to Bonds in the public-opinion courtroom.

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: A single positive test would normally require a second test to rule out the possibility of a false positive, no?

true, sandlot.
but if a second positive test result does exist somewhere out there, the feds do not have possession of it.

sandlot: So if the Feds, or somebody, have possession of a single "result," that may in itself be evidence of nothing.

evidence of nothing. agreed.

sandlot: The question is, do they have the record of the results of a followup test that was done to determine the accuracy of the initial rest result?

in all of the mountain of paper that the feds have -- apparently not >> no.

sandlot: Because if they don't, then what they have is essentially a meaningless piece of paper.

meaningless piece of paper. this seems to be the case.
besides, it is reasonable to believe that bonds was not ever told of any positive test result. that is critical to the feds' case.

You say the Feds don't possess a second result and I think that almost certainly must be the case because if they had two results, the case would be over.

"over" to the degree of gagne c.2003 "game over," yes.

The other query is, when a test is done, is the sample retained for future testing, or is it disposed of?

this depends entirely on the k.
under the work agreement in place at the time, samples were stored (and still are. also, they may be used for later testing, courts have held.)
in this case, though, quest did not keep unnamed samples given to them by balco for testing.

In a certain sense it doesn't matter, though, because the story has already done further damage to Bonds in the public-opinion courtroom.

agreed.
but bonds doesn't really give a flying fig about the courtroom of public opinion about this matter. on what occurs on the field is different for him, though.

[runningshoes]

Is it possible that Bonds didn't know he was being tested for steroids?

Perhaps Bonds was a science experiment. Perhaps he wasn't informed that he'd volunteered for the job.

Seems plausible, Bonds being the moron he appears to be, and it reeks of a participant without the brains God gave a duck.

Am I reading too much into this?

:hp :rofl:

[west coast orange and black]

runningshoes: Is it possible that Bonds didn't know he was being tested for steroids?

yes.

runningshoes: Perhaps Bonds was a science experiment. Perhaps he wasn't informed that he'd volunteered for the job.

an experiment? that's funny!
look at it this way: bonds brought in lotsa cash to balco, (player to teammate: "hey, bonds is with those guys. let's check it out".) so balco had lots at stake with the testing status of their premeire client. if bonds did test positive (in a non-mlb test) it is reasonable that balco would not apprise bonds of the test result and tweak the substances without notifying bonds.
it is impossible to distinguish the contents of the substances without a chemistry kit.

runningshoes: Seems plausible, Bonds being the moron he appears to be...

may be. but no bigger a moron than the hundreds of baseball players who used.

[willshad]

Even if Bonds and Clemens did, in fact, both use steroids, I think that Bonds comes off looking much worse. First of all, there is MUCH more statistical evidence that Bonds did juice. Second of all, steroids help hitters much more than they do pitchers. Third, and most importantly, he had no REASON for taking steroids to begin with. Here was a guy who was still posting great seasons and hadnt even reached his decline yet..yet decided to juice. Why? Not to hold onto his job or to prolong his career, but simply to try and make a mockery of the record books (which he did). If Clemens had juiced, it would have been to either overcome injury or to help his workouts. Or maybe to try and prolong his career. He wasnt a guy who was already doing great then becoming greedy and trying to cheat to break all the records done by better players. I know technically the crimes are the same. But to me Its like he difference between a guy stealing who is poor and needs the money to live, and a guy stealing who is already rich and trying to become the richest man in the world. One is survival and one is pure greed.

[philkid3]

Even if Bonds and Clemens did, in fact, both use steroids, I think that Bonds comes off looking much worse. First of all, there is MUCH more statistical evidence that Bonds did juice. Second of all, steroids help hitters much more than they do pitchers. Third, and most importantly, he had no REASON for taking steroids to begin with. Here was a guy who was still posting great seasons and hadnt even reached his decline yet..yet decided to juice.

I thought you just assumed he always juiced. You have said this on many occasions.

Why are you suddenly changing your story?

[willshad]

I believe he was juicing as far back as 1992, but obviously he was doing something more starting 2001 or so. Whether he just started juicing then, or whether he increased what he was taking, or just taking different stuff, is irrelevant. The fact is that he was already still doing very well, then decided improvement was necessary anyway.

[Skin & Bones]

Second of all, steroids help hitters much more than they do pitchers.

There is no evidence to back this up.

Third, and most importantly, he had no REASON for taking steroids to begin with. Here was a guy who was still posting great seasons and hadnt even reached his decline yet..yet decided to juice. Why? Not to hold onto his job or to prolong his career, but simply to try and make a mockery of the record books (which he did). If Clemens had juiced, it would have been to either overcome injury or to help his workouts. Or maybe to try and prolong his career.

So now we know why certain players juiced? It's good to see you know everything, despite the facts showing other wise.
According to Kimberly Belle, the person closest to an eye-witness we have on Bonds, Bonds told her he started using steroids for injuries. On the other-hand, according to Brian McNamee, Clemens started using steroids well, because he just felt like using steroids. Never does he mention anything about Clemens using for injuries as you assert, which is a different case with Bonds. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a rant, shall we?

He wasnt a guy who was already doing great then becoming greedy and trying to cheat to break all the records done by better players. I know technically the crimes are the same. But to me Its like he difference between a guy stealing who is poor and needs the money to live, and a guy stealing who is already rich and trying to become the richest man in the world. One is survival and one is pure greed.

Again, this is nothing but assumptions. From the evidence we have thus far, Bonds started using steroids because of an injury, Clemens started for apparently no reason. I'm not saying Belle or McNamee are the most credible people in the world (they both would gain by lying), but if i'm going to buy what one says, I'll buy what the other says.

BTW, records Bonds shattered by "better players" only really refers to Ruth. The walks record was once held by Henderson, a player Bonds was already better than by 1999. He broke Mcgwire's record, another alleged juicer, and clearly inferior player to him. Aaron? Bonds was arguably better than Aaron before his Ruthian years.


I believe he was juicing as far back as 1992, but obviously he was doing something more starting 2001 or so. Whether he just started juicing then, or whether he increased what he was taking, or just taking different stuff, is irrelevant. The fact is that he was already still doing very well, then decided improvement was necessary anyway.

So now he was juicing since 92? How do you know Clemens was clean his entire career?

In fact, using your logic, since there's supposedly "less statistical evidence" that Clemens juiced at a later age compared to Bonds, couldn't one argue that Clemens was juicing much earlier than Bonds? Or does this not apply to Clemens, because you like him, as opposed to you disliking Bonds?

[willshad]

I dont like or dislike anybody. True Im making assumptions, but thats all that ANYONE does (including courts and public opinion) in any case. You look at the evidence and try to make an objective decision based on it. The fact is that I dont see real evidence that steroids helps pitchers as much as it does hitters. I have yet to see a single case where a pitcher suddenly statistically betterered his performance a great degree after juicing, to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time.. Pitchers are more inconsistent than hitters anyway, so any varaince in performance can be due to injuries , an off year, or a career year. True, you can say that about hitters as well, but i can site case after case of hitters suddenly having much better numbers from one year to the next, then continuing it. Most of these guys also suddenly drastically increased muscle mass from one season to the next as well. Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Thome, Giambi, the list goes on. Can you make a similiar list for pitchers? If as many pitchers had been juicing as hitters, then why not the same level of improvement?

But thats not really the issue here. It has been well documented that Bonds, after seeing the press that Sosa and Mcgwire got in 1998, decided he needed to be 'the man' again and take steroids as a way of showing these guys up. In 1999 he got hurt and fell off the radar, but still hadnt shown any real signs of decline.he may well have started juicing to overcome that injury. But after 2000 and 2001, when he obviously no longer had to worry about the injury, and was breaking records and doing things no one had ever done, why keep taking them? What possible motivation can there be? He had been documented saying he wished to wipe out all of Ruth's records, and continued to try and wipe out Aaron's records. He wasnt doing it to keep his job, or to overcome injury. Its not an assumption or a guess, because he wasnt injured and wasnt in danger of losing his job. he wanted to break the records of those guys by juicing because he knew he couldnt do it naturally. If you can give me another possible motivation then Im willing to listen. Clems on the other hand wasnt breaking any records. All of the lifetime pitching records are well out of reach. He was already a hall of famer, but starting to get injured a lot. The way I see it he was either taking (if indeed he was) them due to his injuries, or to try and prolong his career. True, he improved a lot in 1997-1998, but it wasnt any better than he had done earlier in his career. In fact 1997 was probably his best year, and it was when he was supposedly 'clean'. And again, if he was indded still juicing when he went to the Yankees, why did he suddenly do so much worse? Either he WASNT juicing, or the steroids werent helping him a whole lot. Or maybe they helped him those 2 years, but not after. The picture certainly isnt as clear as it is with Bonds.
Im not trying to single out anyone. If Clemens suddenly became Sandy Koufax in 1999 and maintained if for the next 4 years, id be saying the same things about him as i do about Bonds. But the evidence just isnt there.

[Skin & Bones]

I dont like or dislike anybody. True Im making assumptions, but thats all that ANYONE does (including courts and public opinion) in any case. You look at the evidence and try to make an objective decision based on it. The fact is that I dont see real evidence that steroids helps pitchers as much as it does hitters.

Juan Rincon, Kevin Brown, Dan Naulty, Jason Grimsley, just to name a few. Grimsley is a fantastic example of what steroids did for him starting in 1999. Naulty is another fine example. Paxton Crawford is another example, and he even details how steroids aided him with his velocity.




But thats not really the issue here. It has been well documented that Bonds, after seeing the press that Sosa and Mcgwire got in 1998, decided he needed to be 'the man' again and take steroids as a way of showing these guys up. In 1999 he got hurt and fell off the radar, but still hadnt shown any real signs of decline.he may well have started juicing to overcome that injury. But after 2000 and 2001, when he obviously no longer had to worry about the injury, and was breaking records and doing things no one had ever done, why keep taking them? What possible motivation can there be? He had been documented saying he wished to wipe out all of Ruth's records, and continued to try and wipe out Aaron's records.

I'm not sure what his reasons were, I'm just going by what his "alleged" ex-mistress said.

He wasnt doing it to keep his job, or to overcome injury. Its not an assumption or a guess, because he wasnt injured and wasnt in danger of losing his job. he wanted to break the records of those guys by juicing because he knew he couldnt do it naturally. If you can give me another possible motivation then Im willing to listen. Clems on the other hand wasnt breaking any records. All of the lifetime pitching records are well out of reach. He was already a hall of famer, but starting to get injured a lot. The way I see it he was either taking (if indeed he was) them due to his injuries, or to try and prolong his career. True, he improved a lot in 1997-1998, but it wasnt any better than he had done earlier in his career. In fact 1997 was probably his best year, and it was when he was supposedly 'clean'. And again, if he was indded still juicing when he went to the Yankees, why did he suddenly do so much worse? Either he WASNT juicing, or the steroids werent helping him a whole lot. Or maybe they helped him those 2 years, but not after. The picture certainly isnt as clear as it is with Bonds.

Sure, Clemens wasn't breaking any records, but that doesn't change the fact that he aged extremely well. With that said, yes, his statline isn't as stark as Bonds, but what does that mean exactly? It seems your focused on the sustained success of four years. Yes, Bonds had four years where he was breaking records, but what about in 1999? 2005? What about 2006, 2007? Did he just stop juicing? What made steroid testing better from 05-07, then it was from 03-04? You also mention that Clemens was allegedly "clean" in his best season, that's true, but arguably so was Bonds. Game of Shadows never mentions once that Bonds was using steroids in 2004, which if not his best season, it was his second best.





Im not trying to single out anyone. If Clemens suddenly became Sandy Koufax in 1999 and maintained if for the next 4 years, id be saying the same things about him as i do about Bonds. But the evidence just isnt there.


Fair enough, though if your looking for someone who fits that description, Randy Johnson is your man.


BTW, you mentioned Jim Thome, what proof do you have that he juiced?

[west coast orange and black]

willshad: True Im making assumptions, but thats all that ANYONE does in any case.
i hafta disagree with you, willshad. not all posts re substances are based on assumptions.

I have yet to see a single case where a pitcher suddenly statistically betterered his performance a great degree after juicing, to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time.
you hafta know where to look.

Most of these guys also suddenly drastically increased muscle mass from one season to the next as well. Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Thome, Giambi, the list goes on.
you list exactly 6 players from a list that "goes on". care to take a stab at additional names?

Can you make a similiar list for pitchers?
you are caught up in physique build-up to prove your point, but that's a false trail.

If as many pitchers had been juicing as hitters, then why not the same level of improvement?
this "level of improvement", it is based on what?

It has been well documented that Bonds .... decided he needed to be 'the man' again...
the original source of this assumption is... care to guess?

But after 2000 and 2001, when [Bonds] obviously no longer had to worry about the injury...
let's say that you are correct about bonds' health being a motivating factor to use.
why would the worry stop? if anything he would be more prone. no?


He had been documented [that] he wished to wipe out all of Ruth's records...
that was just bonds doing some flapping.

He wasnt doing it to keep his job, or to overcome injury.
um...

Its not an assumption or a guess, because he wasnt injured and wasnt in danger of losing his job.
???

If you can give me another possible motivation then Im willing to listen.
see above.

[willshad]

If you honestly believe that Bonds suddenly stopped taking steroids before 2004, then proceeded to post a .609 on base percentage and an .812 slugging percentage cleanly, at the age of 39, then all i can assume is that Bonds is paying you to stick up for him here. Its obvious that Bonds stopped juicing after 2004, and you can tell just from the numbers. He was still a great hitter in 2006-2007, but certainly not the beast he was previously. It looked like normal decline years for a hall of fame player. He wasnt a lifetime .290 career hitter suddenly hitting .370.
Oh and heres a few more names for you:

Ken Caminiti, Bret Boone, Ivan Rodriguez, Albert Belle, Luis Gonzalez, Greg Vaughan, Jim Edmonds..and thats ust off the top of my head.

I dont have 'proof' that Thome juiced, but it is clear he did SOMETHING after 2000 to suddenly start hitting a home run every 10 at bats for the rest of his career.

[Skin & Bones]

If you honestly believe that Bonds suddenly stopped taking steroids before 2004, then proceeded to post a .609 on base percentage and an .812 slugging percentage cleanly, at the age of 39, then all i can assume is that Bonds is paying you to stick up for him here. Its obvious that Bonds stopped juicing after 2004, and you can tell just from the numbers. He was still a great hitter in 2006-2007, but certainly not the beast he was previously. It looked like normal decline years for a hall of fame player. He wasnt a lifetime .290 career hitter suddenly hitting .370.

If Bonds 04 is a juiced season, why is clemens 1997 season "alleged clean"?

There's no more or less evidence that Clemens was juiced in 1997 compared to Bonds in 2004. You either believe they both juiced those seasons, or there is a bias.




Ken Caminiti, Bret Boone, Ivan Rodriguez, Albert Belle, Luis Gonzalez, Greg Vaughan, Jim Edmonds..and thats ust off the top of my head.


The majority of those names aren't linked to steroids. If we are just throwing out random names, include Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson as well.

I dont have 'proof' that Thome juiced, but it is clear he did SOMETHING after 2000 to suddenly start hitting a home run every 10 at bats for the rest of his career.

Hard Work?

[willshad]

1) Clemens was 34 in 1997, Bonds was 39 in 2004.

2) Clemens, while having maybe his best season in 1997, wasnt doing anything he hadnt done previously in his career, before steroids. He had similiar seasons in 1986, 1990, and 1992, and even in 1994 he was close to that level. If Bonds was clean in 2004 it was far better than anything he had done cleanly, even during his prime younger years.

3) It was Clemens' first full healthy season in several years, so we dont really know if he was actually in decline, or just experiencing mid career injury woes from 1993-1996.

If Bonds had come back in 2001 and hit as he did during 1993 or 1994 then that would be a totally different story. But he was much BETTER. It would still be more suspicious than Clemens due to his age, but it would be at least acceptably possible that he was still clean. If he was five years younger and still producing as in his peak years, it wouldnt really be an issue at all.

[Skin & Bones]

1) Clemens was 34 in 1997, Bonds was 39 in 2004.

2) Clemens, while having maybe his best season in 1997, wasnt doing anything he hadnt done previously in his career, before steroids. He had similiar seasons in 1986, 1990, and 1992, and even in 1994 he was close to that level. If Bonds was clean in 2004 it was far better than anything he had done cleanly, even during his prime younger years.

3) It was Clemens' first full healthy season in several years, so we dont really know if he was actually in decline, or just experiencing mid career injury woes from 1993-1996.

If Bonds had come back in 2001 and hit as he did during 1993 or 1994 then that would be a totally different story. But he was much BETTER. It would still be more suspicious than Clemens due to his age, but it would be at least acceptably possible that he was still clean. If he was five years younger and still producing as in his peak years, it wouldnt really be an issue at all.


I fail to see how 86, 90, or 92 match up with 97, but whatever. So what if he was 34 in 1997, Sammy Sosa was 32 in 2001, his best season, Giambi was 30 in his best season, Mcgwire was 34 in his. Does that mean they were all clean because their best seasons occured at a younger age? Clemens best ERA+ occured at age 42 anyway, compared to Bonds best OPS+ occuring at age 37. And you can mention Clemens decline in innings, I can mention Bonds decline in games.

If anything, Clemens being injured from 1993-1996 leads more to the possibility of him juicing, since according to you he "juiced for injuries". It would seem plausible using your logic that he would juice in 1997 because of the injuries he dealt with prior to that season.

[Mattingly]

willshad: True Im making assumptions, but thats all that ANYONE does in any case.
i hafta disagree with you, willshad. not all posts re substances are based on assumptions.

I have yet to see a single case where a pitcher suddenly statistically betterered his performance a great degree after juicing, to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time.
you hafta know where to look.
If that's the case, presuming you know where to look, can you please list a few pitchers whose numbers have increased to the astronomical levels that Bonds has done after the 2000 season, as compared to prior seasons? Please list both the pitchers and the relevant years (when they were at least age 34) in which their stats increased very dramatically.

[Old Sweater]

Jason Giambi December 2003
Admitted Using: Steroids (The Clear, The Cream, Deca-Durabolin, Injectable Testosterone), Human Growth Hormone
What he said: Testifying before the Grand Jury, Giambi admitted to using undetectable BALCO drugs and injectable testosterone provided by Greg Anderson. He also said he used Deca-Durabolin and hGH he bought at a Gold’s Gym near Las Vegas. He testified that he used the BALCO drugs in 2002 and 2003, the Deca-Durabolin in 2001, and the hGH from 2001 to 2003. Giambi implied Bonds’ steroid use when he testified that he was drawn to Anderson because of Bonds' success. His confidential testimony was leaked to the San Fransisco Chronicle; excerpts were published in a Dec. 2, 2004 article entitled Giambi admitted taking steroids.



Jason 1999/.315/.422/.553/33hr/123rbi/no admitted use/age 28/158 games
----- 2000/.333/.476/.647/43hr/137rbi/no admitted use/age 29/152 games
----- 2001/,342/.477/.660/38hr/120rbi/admitted use/age 30/154 games
----- 2002/.314/.435/.598/41hr/122rbi/admitted use/age 31/155 games
----- 2003/.250/.412/.527/41hr/107rbi/admitted use/age 32/156 games
----- 2004 .208/.342/.379/12hr/40rbi/ no admitted use/age 33/ 80 games
----- 2005 .271/.440/.535/32hr/87rbi/no admitted use/age 34/139 games
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom House May 2005
Admitted Using: Steroids (Non-specific)
What he said: In a telephone interview with San Fransisco Chronicle reporter, Ron Kroichick, House admitted to using steroids ‘for a couple of seasons’ during his career (1971-1978). House estimated that six or seven pitchers on every staff in baseball were experimenting with steroids in the 1970’s. This was, and still is, the earliest account of steroid use in baseball. House’s admission and comments are from a May 3, 2005 San Fransisco Chronicle article entitled House a 'failed experiment' with steroids.

Tom House said he gained 30 lbs/recovered quicker/no gain in velocity



Paxton Crawford June 2006
Admitted Using: Steroids (Deca-Durabolin, Winstrol), Human Growth Hormone
What he said: In an article by ESPN’s Amy K. Nelson, Crawford admitted to using steroids and hGH during the 2001-2003 season. Crawford said steroids ‘had a hold of the game’ and that players were ‘walking around like zombies.’ Crawford’s admission was published in the June 21, 2006 issue of ESPN The Magazine, in article entitled Why Pitchers Juice.

Paxton Crawford

2000/29ip/3.41era/no admitted use
2001/39ip/4.75era/admitted use

I have read in one article that Paxton Crawford claimed a velocity gain of 3mph/just hear say/ no speed gun proof

Paxton Crawford claims that PED use led to back and shoulder problems that ended his career/ now he is a farmer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jason Grimsley June 2006
Admitted Using: Steroids (Deca-Durabolin), Prohormones (1-AD), Human Growth Hormone
What he said: In an IRS affidavit, Grimsley says he used steroids throughout his 15 year career, but had used only hGH since MLB instituted its drug testing program in 2004. Grimsley named other players who were users though the names were redacted. David Segui later admitted to being one of the redacted names. Grimsley’s admission was released in an affidavit of IRS agent Jeff Novitzky.


Jason Grimsley admitted to PED use for his career/ no spikes or decline to show/ can't be used for comparison

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Byrd October 2007
Admitted Using: Human Growth Hormone(Somatropin)
The Story: Byrd received 13 prescriptions for (some for Somatropin) between August 2002 and January 2005 while a member of the Royals and Braves. from the Palm Beach Rejuvenation Center, an anti-aging clinic in Florida. Byrd claimed he had a legitimate growth hormone deficiency and that the hGH was used under "a doctor's care and supervision.' Byrd's name was revealed in a October 17, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article entitled Cleveland Pitcher Spent Thousands on Human Growth Hormone.

Paul Byrd

2000/83ip/6.51era/no admitted use/age 30
2001/103ip/4.44era/no admitted use/age 30
2002/228ip/3.90/admitted use/age 31
2003/missed entire season/ age 32
2004/114ip/3.94/admitted use/age 33
2005/204ip/3.74/admitted use/age 34
2006/179ip/4.88/ no admitted use/age 35
2007/192ip/4.59/no admitted use/age 36


As always you wonder if Paul Byrd admitted to all use and never has been known as a hard thrower.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is a good link for info on all the PED players

http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/2006/09/important-steroid-era-documents.html

[west coast orange and black]

willshad: I have yet to see a single case where a pitcher suddenly statistically bettered his performance a great degree after juicing, to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time.

wcoab: you hafta know where to look.

Mattingly: can you please list a few pitchers whose numbers have increased to the astronomical levels that Bonds has done after the 2000 season, as compared to prior seasons?

no, i can not; no one can.
does this in itself then, mean to you that bonds was the only player who used?

bonds' 2001 season was electrifying in a way that might not ever be equaled - statistically or as theater (.863 slugging aside, he clobbered a home run every 12+ swings).

many point to bonds' dramatically increased numbers as the end all be all portrait of a user, neglecting the fact that the hard stats of hundreds of players who used did not change all that much.

"not all that much," though, is a very loaded term.
to keep a connection to bonds intact for you, let me offer that the rally monkey championship season of the 2002 champion angels, f'rinstance, was largely on the back of a pitcher who used... whose name i have not ever seen on a suspected users' list. that his name does not jump out at you in .8 seconds demonstrates just how many have prospered while flying under the radar.

[Old Sweater]

willshad: I have yet to see a single case where a pitcher suddenly statistically bettered his performance a great degree after juicing, to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time.

wcoab: you hafta know where to look.

Mattingly: can you please list a few pitchers whose numbers have increased to the astronomical levels that Bonds has done after the 2000 season, as compared to prior seasons?

no, i can not; no one can.



wcoab/ What do you mean by saying, you have to know where to look, replying to Willshad and then telling Mattingly, no I can not, no one can.:confused:

[willisraverchk77]

may be. but no bigger a moron than the hundreds of baseball players who used.

i say a bigger one because he had a lot more to lose than most. most players who used, if the mitchel report is any indication,probably figured, "well, what have i got to lose". they weren't risking a HoF legacy like bonds did. they were just fighting for a job in many cases.

who's the bigger moron, a guy who spends one paycheck to buy lotto tickets, or a guy who's already rich mortgaging his mansion to buy lotto tickets?

i say bonds was clearly the biggest moron of them all.

[west coast orange and black]

old sweater: wcoab, what do you mean by saying, you have to know where to look, replying to Willshad and then telling Mattingly, no I can not, no one can.

wilshad posted that he has "yet to see a single case where a pitcher 'suddenly statistically bettered' his performance .... to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time."
to which i replied, "you hafta know where to look."

mattingly, however, asked for pitchers "whose numbers have increased to the astronomical levels..."
big difference between "statistically bettered" and "increased to astronomical levels."

[west coast orange and black]

willisraverchk77: i say bonds was clearly the biggest moron of them all.

ok, then. i amend and shorten it to simply "may be."

[Old Sweater]

old sweater: wcoab, what do you mean by saying, you have to know where to look, replying to Willshad and then telling Mattingly, no I can not, no one can.

wilshad posted that he has "yet to see a single case where a pitcher 'suddenly statistically bettered' his performance .... to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time."
to which i replied, "you hafta know where to look."

mattingly, however, asked for pitchers "whose numbers have increased to the astronomical levels..."
big difference between "statistically bettered" and "increased to astronomical levels."

Not if the "statistically bettered were increased astronomical numbers."

What is the standard considered between the two?

[Skin & Bones]

Old Sweater, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Crawford didn't juice in 2000.

Paxton Crawford, reached by phone last night, offered no more than a minute to explain himself, despite the fact that in the ESPN The Magazine issue that hit newsstands yesterday he detailed his steroid use beginning in 1999 in minor league camp with the Red Sox and continuing in the majors with the team in 2000 and 2001.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fsports%2Fbasebal l%2Fredsox%2Farticles%2F2006%2F06%2F22%2Fformer_so x_starter_admits_steroid_use%2F&ei=oOPER_P6PInQgQSCpbmdDQ&usg=AFQjCNF5-W2yn1OA35WAXoblJhzWxAjUwQ&sig2=mZSnyoMQ-sxZ3rtE99imEQ

[Old Sweater]

Old Sweater, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Crawford didn't juice in 2000.



http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fsports%2Fbasebal l%2Fredsox%2Farticles%2F2006%2F06%2F22%2Fformer_so x_starter_admits_steroid_use%2F&ei=oOPER_P6PInQgQSCpbmdDQ&usg=AFQjCNF5-W2yn1OA35WAXoblJhzWxAjUwQ&sig2=mZSnyoMQ-sxZ3rtE99imEQ

From the same magazine.

What he said: In an article by ESPN’s Amy K. Nelson, Crawford admitted to using steroids and hGH during the 2001-2003 season.

Older article I guess Skin & Bones. The guy really pitch long enough for the subject at hand anyways.

[west coast orange and black]

old sweater: What is the standard considered between ["statistically bettered" and "increased to astronomical levels"]?

well, it's all arbitrary, i guess.
but can it be agreed that bonds' numbers improved as none other's?

what has been forgotten is that while dozens of ballplayers used "clear" / "the clear" and "the cream", no one other than bonds improved statistically the way that bonds did.
all of the answers are not found in a jar.

[rockin500]

well, bonds did get somewhat of a legal victory today. though he did get bad news as well.

[Old Sweater]

old sweater: What is the standard considered between ["statistically bettered" and "increased to astronomical levels"]?

well, it's all arbitrary, i guess.
but can it be agreed that bonds' numbers improved as none other's?

what has been forgotten is that while dozens of ballplayers used "clear" / "the clear" and "the cream", no one other than bonds improved statistically the way that bonds did.
all of the answers are not found in a jar.


Other players could have taken a bath in the clear/cream and couldn't have done what Bonds did. IMO<.......I have to admit I never cared for Bonds and his arrogant ways but he just one of those players, that you wouldn't run to the fridge to get a snack, when he was in the batters box. I have watched many games at a pool hall where there isn't that many baseball fans but when Bonds came up to bat people start nudging with there elbows or pointing at the TV, when Bonds came up to bat. As soon as his at bat was over, they would go back to eating and drinking.

[Go get em Tigers]

He's a sleaze.

[west coast orange and black]

old sweater: Other players could have taken a bath in the clear/cream and couldn't have done what Bonds did.

interesting choice of words, os.
over 6 1/2 years ago a body builder whose training regimen included hgh explained to me me that a person "would hafta take a bath in "clear" to get the benefits that bonds seems to be getting".

...but when Bonds came up to bat people start nudging with there elbows or pointing at the TV .... as soon as his at bat was over, they would go back to eating and drinking.

bonds was certainly dialed in.
a player can not smack a home run every 12+ swings simply by using something that comes in a jar.

[Old Sweater]

bonds was certainly dialed in.
a player can not smack a home run every 12+ swings simply by using something that comes in a jar.


There is an assumed 1-3% PED performance increase compared to some 100% high moral fans and most BBWAA/HOF voters.


IMO/ Bonds should be a HOF'er but some fans and BBWAA voters don't appreciate the 97% of what Bonds done without the accused PED use with the assumed 1-3% performance increase.

[Sweet Lou]

a player can not smack a home run every 12+ swings simply by using something that comes in a jar.
I don't think anyone is saying that he hit home runs simply by using PEDs. They are saying he increased his recovery time, stamina, and strength, which enabled him to hit MORE home runs than he would have been able to hit without using PEDs.
He was also able to extend his career, which enabled him to hit MORE home runs than he would have been able to hit without PEDs.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
shorter recovery time... increased strength and stamina... how damning.
an extended career... how dare he... and the hundreds of others!

this entire time i have not understood the focus on bonds.
he's just one guy.
how can his actions be worse than those of others?

[willshad]

His actions are worse, because he was making a mockery of the record books. He has the seasonal record for home ruins, slugging, on base perecntage, as well as many others, and he doesnt really deserve it. It is obvious from looking at his numbers that he wasnt increasing his performance by '1-3%'. how else can he, at age 36 suddenly hit 73 home runs when his career high is 46? thats more like a 60% increase. and it wasnt a fluke season either like Maris. He continued that home run pace to this very day. Never mind that he is currenty 43 and hitting home runs at a pace of one every 10 at bats. Face it, Bonds increased his performance more like 50% from using steroids, especially since he was entering what should have been his decline years.

[Mattingly]

^^
shorter recovery time... increased strength and stamina... how damning.
an extended career... how dare he... and the hundreds of others!

this entire time i have not understood the focus on bonds.
he's just one guy.
how can his actions be worse than those of others?
So you're saying that "well, other guys have done it" is a valid argument?

Have the other guys shattered the record books like this? Isn't Clemens getting badgered also for allegedly doing what essentially others have done (taking PEDs)?

As to the focus on Bonds, the person who has the greatest records gets the most press. When that person is said to have cheated, the press scrutiny will even further increase, especially if the numbers have increased by a very sizeable amount.

That's about it in a nutshell, but I get the impression that you're already aware of the reason for the scrutiny.

[Old Sweater]

His actions are worse, because he was making a mockery of the record books. He has the seasonal record for home ruins, slugging, on base perecntage, as well as many others, and he doesnt really deserve it. It is obvious from looking at his numbers that he wasnt increasing his performance by '1-3%'. how else can he, at age 36 suddenly hit 73 home runs when his career high is 46? thats more like a 60% increase. and it wasnt a fluke season either like Maris. He continued that home run pace to this very day. Never mind that he is currenty 43 and hitting home runs at a pace of one every 10 at bats. Face it, Bonds increased his performance more like 50% from using steroids, especially since he was entering what should have been his decline years.

WOW, that is self assumption at a record breaking pace.

How so you explain the ball contact? PED's?

Hank Aaron's top slg% at 37 and the 2nd best at age 39?

The assumed PED performance increase vs the extra HR's you are giving Bonds credit for? That kind of performance increase credit isn't in any of the PED articles that I have read. Bonds must have hit a lot of wall scrapers earlier in his career for the extra few feet that PED articles give credit for distance of a batted ball.


If you take the assumed performance increase of PED's into account for Bonds at face value, you should have to take into account the percentages they state and also the account of how many assumed short career's is caused by PED's at face value, to be fair in a self assumption.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Hank Aaron's top slg% at 37 and the 2nd best at age 39?

Aaron had 573 plate appearances in 1971, about 100 less than years past, and 465 PAs in 1973. That may have something to do with his slugging percentages being so high in those years.

[west coast orange and black]

willshad: [Bonds'] actions are worse, because he was making a mockery of the record books.

oh, ok. got it.
to you, bonds is "more guilty" or "more despicable" or "more evil" or whatever because of the numbers and records. that's a curious position to have. i mean, it has been established that others used more substances +/or for longer periods of time than did bonds, yet bonds is your focus... not because of his actions, rather, the results.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: So you're saying that "well, other guys have done it" is a valid argument?

what i am saying is that i have not placed more blame on one particular player... even those whose performances have won world series trophies.

Have the other guys shattered the record books like this?

this has been a very interesting angle - that the record books are of more value than the behavior.

As to the focus on Bonds, the person who has the greatest records gets the most press.

well, that is certainly true; they have papers to sell.
what are you selling? what's in it for you?

I get the impression that you're already aware of the reason for the scrutiny.

aware and understand the higher scrutiny, yes.
understand the reasons for such... no.
unlike you, for me it is the behavior, not the results of the behavior.

[Old Sweater]

Aaron had 573 plate appearances in 1971, about 100 less than years past, and 465 PAs in 1973. That may have something to do with his slugging percentages being so high in those years.

Very well could be Sam. But that is still the way percentages work. Pretty darn good one's to, at that age, or any age, for any amount of AB's over 200.

Add the two together and it isn't that bad either.

[Old Sweater]

The "Tainted Records" Claim
The broad term "performance-enhancing drugs" comprises two classes: those that improve strength and those that fight fatigue and improve alertness. The first class includes all the substances currently the focus of public attention, especially steroids and human-growth hormone; the second notably includes "greenies"--amphetamines--a serious drug of long-standing abuse whose significance has been largely ignored in the current furor. Though there is a brief discussion of stimulant substances on the detailed medical-effects page of this site, from here on references to "PEDs" will mean the strengthening PEDs.


What to Seek and How to Measure It
To search for possible effects from PED use, we first need to understand what PEDs might or might not do for players. No one has ever claimed that any PED improves visual acuity or reflex response speed; all that PEDs can possibly do is increase muscularity. In baseball terms, that means power--the distance balls are hit. If PEDs have a discernible effect in baseball, then that effect must be on power, and only on power.

To properly measure power levels in baseball, we need something that is independent of other performance data. We cannot, for example, simply count home runs--for a batter, a league, or all of major-league baseball--because home-run figures can change substantially with no change in power. To understand that, realize that power determines how far a ball will go when struck well; for a given level of power, with all other factors constant, a certain proportion of all hits will be home runs. Still keeping all else fixed, more power means more home runs, less means fewer. But suppose all else is not constant. Suppose, for example, that the strike zone as called by umpires were to change materially one way or the other over time (which has actually happened, as with the rapid and substantial 2001 expansion); clearly, the number of hits gotten would also change materially. So, even with no change in actual power, batters would get materially more or fewer home runs as a consequence.

Moving from a straight crude count to a rate measure is no improvement. If hits were to go up for reasons unrelated to power--as, for example, by strike-zone size changes--so would the rate of home runs as measured by home runs per plate appearance or home runs per at-bat. (So also, we must remember, would total scoring.)

To successfully measure power per se, what we need to do is relate well-powered balls to hit totals. We could use the ratio of home runs to hits, and that works pretty well. But not all "well-powered" balls necessarily leave the yard: doubles and triples are also, to some extent, indicators of power. Thus, the best measure of sheer power is Total Bases per Hit, a figure aptly known as the Power Factor.


Here is a raw PF graph of all of major-league baseball for the entire "modern" (post-1800s) era, from 1900 through 2007 inclusive. The main page on this topic has a much larger image of the graph, but this reduced version is in a way even more useful, in that long-term trends are more obvious. Let's begin with a quick tour through the seasons to see what it shows.

Two things quickly become obvious: one, that for most of the century there appears to be a fairly steady upward trend to power; but two, that at certain points there are sudden discontinuous jumps. (That is even ignoring the expected dips and jumps that represent the starts and ends of WW I and WW II, which are labelled on the graph.) Those discontinuities separate readily recognized distinct eras in the game. The slightly upslope red lines represent the long-term averages of the years that they span, smoothing out the minor year-to-year zigs and zags.

Those discontinuities are extremely important to an understanding of power results, so let's look more closely at them.


http://steroids-and-baseball.com/


Best info on hitting I've found so far. At least there is some research about PED claims.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Very well could be Sam. But that is still the way percentages work. Pretty darn good one's to, at that age, or any age, for any amount of AB's over 200.

Add the two together and it isn't that bad either.

I agree. Aaron played very well in those circumstances too. That's all my point was; that's the way the percentages bounce. ;)

[Skin & Bones]

willshad: [Bonds'] actions are worse, because he was making a mockery of the record books.

oh, ok. got it.
to you, bonds is "more guilty" or "more despicable" or "more evil" or whatever because of the numbers and records. that's a curious position to have. i mean, it has been established that others used more substances +/or for longer periods of time than did bonds, yet bonds is your focus... not because of his actions, rather, the results.


Wrong. Bonds used substances since....middle school. At least in Willshad's opinion.

The guy doesn't like Bonds, so I doubt you'll convince him other-wise.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly: So you're saying that "well, other guys have done it" is a valid argument?

what i am saying is that i have not placed more blame on one particular player... even those whose performances have won world series trophies.
Well, I think that quite a few people put more focus on Barry Bonds as opposed to Rafael Palmeiro, who was caught using the same stuff that Ben Johnson did in the Olympics (1988, I think) because Raffy was struggling to make 500 HRs to likely give him credentials to get into the HoF in the first place. By comparison, anyone thinking that Barry Bonds, before his dramatic 2001 season, wasn't a first balloter, may need to stop reading this.

Clemens gets more focus as a pitcher than other pitchers because he's won 7 CYAs and 354 wins, just like Bonds has won 7 NL MVPs. It's the "biggest fish in the pond gets the most press" thing.

Too many guys on a WS team to focus on every single one. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a WS championship team? I don't see any federal inquiries about that type of player.
Have the other guys shattered the record books like this?

this has been a very interesting angle - that the record books are of more value than the behavior.
What kind of behavior are you referring to? What kind of behavior are you referring to as to Barry Bonds that other players have different behavior? To me, the word "behavior" can be somewhat vague.
As to the focus on Bonds, the person who has the greatest records gets the most press.

well, that is certainly true; they have papers to sell.
what are you selling? what's in it for you?
What makes you think I'm selling something? You speak more often about Barry Bonds than I do. What exactly would you be selling? I'm here for a baseball discussion. And yourself? What's in it for yourself?

I'm curious, is there an expectation that if someone questions Bonds that their own motives are to be questioned? It seems you've contributed to quite a few threads over the years on Barry Bonds, so why in the world are you questioning someone else's motives when your own could just as easily be questioned?
I get the impression that you're already aware of the reason for the scrutiny.

aware and understand the higher scrutiny, yes.
understand the reasons for such... no.
unlike you, for me it is the behavior, not the results of the behavior.
Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.

[Sweet Lou]

^^
shorter recovery time... increased strength and stamina... how damning.
an extended career... how dare he... and the hundreds of others!

this entire time i have not understood the focus on bonds.
he's just one guy.
how can his actions be worse than those of others?
Look, this is very simple: If he did PEDs, he gained an unfair advantage. If ANYONE did PEDs, they gained an unfair advantage. PEDS ARE ILLEGAL, REMEMBER?
I'm not picking on just Bonds. I'm disgusted with the whole scene. But correct me if I'm wrong here, but your statement above seems to condone his usage, or at the very least, dismiss it as acceptable.
How many home runs do you think he'd hit WITHOUT PEDs? Think he would have broken Hanks record? Ruth's record? Think he would have played as long?

[Mattingly]

Look, this is very simple: If he did PEDs, he gained an unfair advantage. If ANYONE did PEDs, they gained an unfair advantage. PEDS ARE ILLEGAL, REMEMBER?
I'm not picking on just Bonds. I'm disgusted with the whole scene. But correct me if I'm wrong here, but your statement above seems to condone his usage, or at the very least, dismiss it as acceptable.
How many home runs do you think he'd hit WITHOUT PEDs? Think he would have broken Hanks record? Ruth's record? Think he would have played as long?
Under no circumstances would Barry Bonds have had the off-the-wall (and off-the-charts) numbers he had after the 2000 season w/o PED usage. Some people see to want to condone it, but I'm just glad that not everyone has their eyes closed on the issue, thankfully.

Both Barry and Roger will roast in the same governmental hot seat, be it in front of the US Congress, FBI or whoever.

[willshad]

Wrong. Bonds used substances since....middle school. At least in Willshad's opinion.

The guy doesn't like Bonds, so I doubt you'll convince him other-wise.

The numbers dont lie. If you had to guess what Bonds would have done without steroids, what would you guess? would you say 69 home runs instead of 73? an .820 slugging percentage instead of .867? an on base percentage of .570 instead of .609? sorry but to me thats just not realistic.

[Old Sweater]

Is cortisone injections on the MLB banned list?

Treatment with steroid injections
What is cortisone?
Cortisone is a type of steroid that is produced naturally by a gland in your body called the adrenal gland. Cortisone is released from the adrenal gland when your body is under stress. Natural cortisone is released into the blood stream and is relatively short-acting.
Injectable cortisone is synthetically produced and has many different trade names (e.g. Celestone, Kenalog, etc.), but is a close derivative of your body's own product. The most significant differences are that synthetic cortisone is not injected into the blood stream, but into a particular area of inflammation. Also, the synthetic cortisone is designed to act more potently and for a longer period of time (days instead of minutes).

How does the cortisone injection help?
Cortisone is a powerful anti-inflammatory medication. Cortisone is not a pain relieving medication, it only treats the inflammation. When pain is decreased from cortisone it is because the inflammation is diminished. By injecting the cortisone into a particular area of inflammation, very high concentrations of the medication can be given while keeping potential side-effects to a minimum. Cortisone injections usually work within a few days, and the effects can last up to several weeks.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: So you're saying that "well, other guys have done it" is a valid argument?

what i am saying is that i have not placed more blame on one particular player... even those whose performances have won world series trophies.

Rafael Palmeiro …. Clemens …. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a ws championship team? Have the other guys shattered the record books like this?

this has been a very interesting angle - that the record books are of more value than the behavior.

What kind of behavior are you referring to? What kind of behavior are you referring to as to Barry Bonds that other players have different behavior?

sorry for the ambiguity on his one, mattingly.
what i mean is that the numbers and records that have happened along the way are more important, more significant, than the illegal substance use (“the behavior”) of the players. check me if i have this wrong, but your position that [no one] is “really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder [even] on a ws championship team” means that name recognition and numbers / records are what draws your attention and focus.
i simply do not understand how numbers and records take precedent over the illegal act. the numbers are incidental and secondary. At least, they ought to be to everyone interested in watching a clean sport.

I'm curious, is there an expectation that if someone questions Bonds that their own motives are to be questioned?

quite possibly. i guess it all comes down to motive.

Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.

there is nothing unique… and that’s my point.
you, on the other hand, by singling bonds out, are one who differentiates.

[west coast orange and black]

wcoab: this entire time i have not understood the focus on bonds.
he's just one guy.
how can his actions be worse than those of others?

sweet lou: If ANYONE did PEDs, they gained an unfair advantage. I'm not picking on just Bonds. I'm disgusted with the whole scene. But correct me if I'm wrong here, but your statement above seems to condone his usage, or at the very least, dismiss it as acceptable.

not a correction, lou, but merely another opportunity to say that i do not condone or dismiss.
i happen to belong to the majority on this one. fans took in games in record numbers after the ped story went public. i wonder if each has been questioned if he condones or dismisses. probably not.

How many home runs do you think he'd hit WITHOUT PEDs? Think he would have broken Hanks record? Ruth's record? Think he would have played as long?

you seem to preoccupied (and angered) by the numbers achieved and records set by bonds. i guess i kinda understand the preoccupation with the records long-thought to be the most hallowed of the sport. but for me, those records are by an individual, and are kinda inconsequential in that players play for the ring, not numbers... yet the focus remains on bonds.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly: So you're saying that "well, other guys have done it" is a valid argument?

what i am saying is that i have not placed more blame on one particular player... even those whose performances have won world series trophies.
I think that people in general base their blame, opinions, etc on what they see on TV, hear on the radio, read in newspapers and sports weeklies, such as SI, ESPN Mag, TSN, etc. If the vast majority of those sports media outlets, as well as the news networks such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox also focus on Barry Bonds, then I think it's reasonable to say that quite a few people have focused much of their attention upon him.

Right now, Roger Clemens has gotten the lion's share of attention in a similar way (extensive media focus).

Whether or not more blame can be laid upon one single player is debatable. I don't have anything "concrete" as to an opinion on this yet, but I'm more bothered when someone is accused of eclipsing some of the most revered sports records (including the most revered of them all, the career HR record) by allegedly using PEDs than I would be for a lesser-known player.
Rafael Palmeiro …. Clemens …. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a ws championship team? Have the other guys shattered the record books like this?

this has been a very interesting angle - that the record books are of more value than the behavior.
I wouldn't quite say that the record books are of more or less value. However, if Palmeiro goes into Cooperstown, he's just another HoFer. Nice guy, people may have wanted to see him get there, but would he really more memorable than if Dave Parker or Andre Dawson got in? At least in Parker's or Hawk's case, they're presumed clean.

Clemens is the bigger fish because of his stats. If the behavior--PED usage--is the same, then I would dislike allegations of PED usage in both cases. However, I would have more dislike and outrage at the far more accomplished player who'd used this to attain monumental records.
What kind of behavior are you referring to? What kind of behavior are you referring to as to Barry Bonds that other players have different behavior?

sorry for the ambiguity on his one, mattingly.
what i mean is that the numbers and records that have happened along the way are more important, more significant, than the illegal substance use (“the behavior”) of the players. check me if i have this wrong, but your position that [no one] is “really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder [even] on a ws championship team” means that name recognition and numbers / records are what draws your attention and focus.
i simply do not understand how numbers and records take precedent over the illegal act. the numbers are incidental and secondary. At least, they ought to be to everyone interested in watching a clean sport.
Let me clarify: you got close and I believe made a reasonable effort to verify what you felt I'd meant. I thank you for asking.

What I'm saying overall is that, while I'm very concerned when a HS varsity, NCAA or MiLB player uses PEDs of any kind, I am more upset with when the top names in MLB use these.

I would be more upset with Palmeiro's using steroids than a .250 hitter who's got a career 90 HRs, despite 10 years as a journeyman bench player. That would be because of the more prominent position that Raffy plays.

I am more upset with Bonds allegedly taking steroids, designer drugs, HGH, etc, because he's cracked several major offensive records, most of which were thought to be secure for years.

Could I revise my order of importance or priorities in this? Yes, but right now, that's how I feel.
I'm curious, is there an expectation that if someone questions Bonds that their own motives are to be questioned?

quite possibly. i guess it all comes down to motive.
As mentioned, my motive is a fair baseball discussion. Everyone's idea and opinion of "fairness" differs, but I have no interest in considering Bonds "evil" or anything similar. I just don't think that he's achieved those records when he was "clean" of any PEDs. I don't find that to be of any ulterior motives of any kind.
Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.

there is nothing unique… and that’s my point.
you, on the other hand, by singling bonds out, are one who differentiates.
Nothing unique of Barry Bonds, as compared to other baseball players? Or nothing unique about his alleged PED usage, as compared to others who are also accused of PED usage, but don't have anywhere near the offensive numbers? If you could please clarify, this would be appreciated.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: people in general base their blame, opinions, etc on what they see on .... the news networks …. whether or not more blame can be laid upon one single player is debatable.

“more blame”… for the same action? how and why does this occur?

I'm more bothered when someone is accused of eclipsing some of the most revered sports records by allegedly using PEDs than I would be for a lesser-known player.

curious of the feelings towards a player closer to being able to break records vs those towards an otherwise unremarkable player.

Rafael Palmeiro …. Clemens …. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a ws championship team? Have the other guys shattered the record books like this?

this has been a very interesting angle - that the record books are of more value than the behavior.

...Dave Parker or Andre Dawson got in? At least in Parker's or Hawk's case, they're presumed clean.

admitted cocaine user of the pirates? that dave parker?
lemme see if i have this right: cocaine use is accepted but steroids are not.
one does not hafta go far to read posters pointing out (in all caps, no less) that steroids are against the law but… so is cocaine.
to admit parker but deny a steroid user means that we are back to the idea that it is not the action of the individual rather, the result of the action. no?

I am more upset with when the top names in MLB use.

ok. but you can't sell that one to the player on the bubble in the minors who lost out to a 25-man player who benefitted from illegal substance use.

I am more upset with Bonds allegedly taking steroids because he's cracked several major offensive records …. that's how I feel.

coolio.

Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.

there is nothing unique… and that’s my point.
you, on the other hand, by singling bonds out, are one who differentiates.

Nothing unique of Barry Bonds, as compared to other baseball players? Or nothing unique about his alleged PED usage, as compared to others who are also accused of PED usage, but don't have anywhere near the offensive numbers? If you could please clarify, this would be appreciated.

you specifically asked about bonds’ behavior. i see nothing that differentiates him from other players… except that his post-number-499-home run bat collection is larger than anyone else’s. :hide:
as far as others differentiating bonds, though, one needs to look no further than jack cust on this one.

[Skin & Bones]

The numbers dont lie. If you had to guess what Bonds would have done without steroids, what would you guess? would you say 69 home runs instead of 73? an .820 slugging percentage instead of .867? an on base percentage of .570 instead of .609? sorry but to me thats just not realistic.

I'm not sure what this has to do with your arguement that Bonds has been juiced his entire career.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

A lawyer's view on the charges against Bonds from Shysterball. I don't know much about the details of the legal system but the article was quite informative.

http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2008/03/bonds-before-grand-jury.html