Bonds indicted

[CanadianChris 0]

If you can't discern between an emery board and illegal steroids, you're retarded.

Not to be really facetious here, but one was cheating and one wasn't.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Bonds pleads not guilty

 

While I'm not naive enough to argue that Bonds never used steroids, it seems somewhat disingenuous on the media's part to say that he had a tremendous power surge after his alleged steroid use starting after the 1998 season. He had finished in the top 10 in home runs 9 times before then.

[Dandy 0]

I believe without a doubt that Bonds used steroids. Some of them he might have used unknowingly, not knowing for certain that they were steroids. Some. However, athletes train hard to stay in the elite or make it to the elite. The man had personal trainers, personal chefs, and a very nice gym in his house. If I had that sort of set-up, I would be able to change my body fairly well. Supplements are deemed okay as long as they don't contain anything on the banned substance list. Well, a lot of what Conte was using with his athletes were not banned substances because they hadn't been "discovered" yet.

 

The problem I have with it all is the media is acting like Barry Bonds would still be a 160 pound man like when he first came into the league if it were not for him juicing up. The man got bigger and stronger as he got older just like a lot of people tend to do. I have friends that don't lift weights and they are a lot thicker and more muscular since high school and college. Bonds may have taken steroids, but he was putting up good numbers before, like Cheech said, and he was getting bigger before he supposedly got on the gas. Some people make it out like he would only have about 300 homers if he never juiced.

[Guest My Pal, the Tortoise]

People don't grow as drastically and quickly, though. I'm not sure who's saying that he would have only hit 300 homers. The party line seems to be that he was destined to become one of the best baseball players ever, but his ambition to be THE best, or rather, the means to that end, ended up being his undoing.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The problem I have with it all is the media is acting like Barry Bonds would still be a 160 pound man like when he first came into the league if it were not for him juicing up. The man got bigger and stronger as he got older just like a lot of people tend to do. I have friends that don't lift weights and they are a lot thicker and more muscular since high school and college. Bonds may have taken steroids, but he was putting up good numbers before, like Cheech said, and he was getting bigger before he supposedly got on the gas. Some people make it out like he would only have about 300 homers if he never juiced.

 

Other than the fact that he became the best hitter ever in his late 30s, there was nothing unusual about Bonds' career arc. I find it insulting that they refer to Bonds as a "lithe outfielder" and "basestealer." It implies that he was Ichiro out there. In fact, Bonds was a superior power/speed guy. As he got older and lost his speed, he gained a little more patience and power, which is what happens to nearly every other comparable baseball player with a similar skillset.

 

Look, we know that Bonds took steroids. They don't have to frame the article to imply that Bonds trasformed from a wirey speedster into a hulking basher. He was your typical power hitting outfielder that changed his game and frame as he got older. There's nothing particularly outlandish about that.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Other than the fact that he became the best hitter ever in his late 30s, there was nothing unusual about Bonds' career arc.

 

Don't you think there's something disingenuous about this statement? How would you feel about a proclamation that says "Other than the years that they didn't win the World Series, the Boston Red Sox have won the World Series every year"?

 

The late career power surge is unprecedented. Everybody wants to pose Hank Aaron as an alternative because he set his career high in homers at the age of 37, but that's too handy of a surface-level reading: his previous career high was 45 and he had four different 40 home run seasons in his 30s. Aaron maintained his remarkable power level throughout the end of his career; he didn't jump from 34 home runs in a season (where he suffered from an elbow injury, BTW) to 73 home runs in two years flat.

 

In previous posts, I've maintained that Bonds was a HoF guy based off of his "pre-steroids" career alone - he may have been one of the the best all around players that had ever played the game, even up to that point, and you could probably discount the rest of his career for the suspicions of steroid use and still have a player that was worthy of inclusion. But we're not talking about suspicions any more and, if Bonds were to be convicted of perjury, I would feel that he should never be allowed in the Hall of Fame. In that scenario, his induction to the Hall of Fame sends the wrong message: as long as you hit a bunch of home runs, as long as you put up numbers, it's okay if you break the law and cheat the very spirit of athleticism.

 

Look, we know that Bonds took steroids. They don't have to frame the article to imply that Bonds trasformed from a wirey speedster into a hulking basher.

 

I agree that the media doesn't have to imply this, but this is what Bonds has sown from his previous interactions with the media. He picked this fight and, whether it's "ethical" or not for the media to take part in it, they're going to oblige.

[Guest My Pal, the Tortoise]

On the mark everywhere. I have little else to add to that, other than preemptively drawing this card out of the deck and tossing it in the fireplace: nobody gives a flying fuck about what Gaylord Perry put on baseballs. That said, moving on, you're correct, a felony conviction has to de facto disqualify Bonds from Cooperstown. Too many people get caught up in worshipping big numbers and lose sight of the big picture.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

On the mark everywhere. I have little else to add to that, other than preemptively drawing this card out of the deck and tossing it in the fireplace: nobody gives a flying fuck about what Gaylord Perry put on baseballs.

 

What I want to know is why blatantly breaking the rules of the game (spitballs, emery boards, etc.) is considered totally meaningless, but nebulously "cheating" (steroids, which don't actually involve cheating the written rules of the game, or at least until recently) is the worst violation known to man?

[Nightwing 0]

On the mark everywhere. I have little else to add to that, other than preemptively drawing this card out of the deck and tossing it in the fireplace: nobody gives a flying fuck about what Gaylord Perry put on baseballs.

 

What I want to know is why blatantly breaking the rules of the game (spitballs, emery boards, etc.) is considered totally meaningless, but nebulously "cheating" (steroids, which don't actually involve cheating the written rules of the game, or at least until recently) is the worst violation known to man?

 

Alright, two things:

 

1) Are you implying that taking Steroids isn't actually cheating? You know, because you put in it quotes and all. I mean, we know that Baseball was late to the game with the rules, but it was banned from just about every major sporting league long before that. Just because they didn't have rules on it doesn't make it any more right. This idea of "Well, it wasn't really in the rules" doesn't mean that it's completely against the spirit of the game and has seriously hurt the game's credibility. Seriously, let's get this down right now: He cheated, and yes, it's one of the worst offenses you can have. People return Olympic Gold Medals because of these things. It's a serious deal.

 

2) Probably because it's a lot harder to make a career off spitballs and emery boards than anabolic steroids. I dunno, that's just a guess by me, but I really don't know of anyone in the modern age who has had a career-defining season via that sort of cheating, nor have I heard any accusations of such a thing. To me, it would seem to be too hard to do without getting caught multiple times nowadays. With steroids, that something you can't catch on a field, and we've seen what it can do to one's career (Man in Blak is exactly right: 34 to 73 in 2 years is a big deal).

 

Anyways, I do feel that it's a bit wrong that only Barry is getting crucified for this. To me, it's not a racial thing (If so, what about Sosa), but is completely about Bonds, his records, and his attitude. He was the poster boy, which is why he is the one that has to pay. While I agree that he should be punished in some way, you need to go after the other big names like McGuire and Sosa.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

With steroids, that something you can't catch on a field, and we've seen what it can do to one's career (Man in Blak is exactly right: 34 to 73 in 2 years is a big deal).

 

Maris went 16 to 61 in two years. Ruth went 11 to 54 in two years. Hank Greenberg went 1 to 58 in two years.

 

Anyways, I do feel that it's a bit wrong that only Barry is getting crucified for this. To me, it's not a racial thing (If so, what about Sosa), but is completely about Bonds, his records, and his attitude. He was the poster boy, which is why he is the one that has to pay. While I agree that he should be punished in some way, you need to go after the other big names like McGuire and Sosa.

 

Honestly, I don't see what good it does to target individual athletes for something so obviously part of the sports culture of the last 15-20 years. The system is broken, not the athletes.

[Nightwing 0]

With steroids, that something you can't catch on a field, and we've seen what it can do to one's career (Man in Blak is exactly right: 34 to 73 in 2 years is a big deal).

 

Maris went 16 to 61 in two years. Ruth went 11 to 54 in two years. Hank Greenberg went 1 to 58 in two years.

 

Well, let's not take those stats completely out of context:

 

Ruth had just come off being a pitcher and was just starting to bat regularly. One could consider the two years a grace period, especially when he's switching positions and hadn't been established at hitting home runs at a certain rate yet.

 

Greenberg only played twelve games in the season that he hit 1 home run. You can't be serious on this one, can you?

 

Maris can only be explained by a magical season. His numbers level back out quite quickly back down. That season, he was just on. I suppose you could make the same argument for Barry Bonds as well, if we didn't know that he had actually been taking anabolic steroids at the time.

 

So you got me on 1 of 3 there. But the third was damn good.

 

Anyways, I do feel that it's a bit wrong that only Barry is getting crucified for this. To me, it's not a racial thing (If so, what about Sosa), but is completely about Bonds, his records, and his attitude. He was the poster boy, which is why he is the one that has to pay. While I agree that he should be punished in some way, you need to go after the other big names like McGuire and Sosa.

 

Honestly, I don't see what good it does to target individual athletes for something so obviously part of the sports culture of the last 15-20 years. The system is broken, not the athletes.

 

I'm only saying that if you are going to go after athletes, don't go after just one and go after them all. To crucify one and let the others off with a hand-slap is hypocrisy. I don't normally pay much attention to baseball, so maybe I shouldn't speak.

[Guest My Pal, the Tortoise]

Well, who else perjured themselves to a grand jury? When they do that, they, too, will be indicted.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Maris went 16 to 61 in two years.

 

Yes, from his age 24 to 26 seasons.

 

Ruth went 11 to 54 in two years.

 

Yes, from his age 23 to 25 seasons. And then there's the whole transition he made to being a full time hitter, with the 54 home run season being the first season where he wasn't a regular starting pitcher.

 

Hank Greenberg went 1 to 58 in two years.

 

Yes, from his age 25 to 27 seasons, the first of which covered all of 42 ABs. (He hit 36 HRs the year before.)

 

Noticing a trend? I'm talking about the nature of Bonds late career power surge; Bonds had five of the top six home run seasons in his career (all with >45 home runs) at or after the age of 35. Before that period, Bonds had only topped 40 home runs three times in fourteen big league seasons. Does the Sinins encyclopedia offer any comparables for that?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Noticing a trend? I'm talking about the nature of Bonds late career power surge; Bonds had five of the top six home run seasons in his career (all with >45 home runs) at or after the age of 35. Before that period, Bonds had only topped 40 home runs three times in fourteen big league seasons. Does the Sinins encyclopedia offer any comparables for that?

 

Note that I'm not going to argue on whether or not Bonds took steroids. Obviously he probably did. Looking over the career record though, that 73 stands out. Nothing else really does though on the home run front. 49, 73, 46, 45 and 45. Take out that 73 and nothing really looks all that suspicious. I've always wondered why no one seems to note that the home run spike also coincided with moving into a park with a 309 foot right field foul pole distance.

 

I find it hard to interpret Bonds' numbers after 2001. The batting averages are much higher. The problem is that pitchers were obviously not throwing to him in anything resembling a clutch situation, and would only pitch to him when they did not have to bear down. There has never been another batter pitched to in such a manner, so it's hard to say what any players numbers would be under the circumstances. Maybe he really wasn't THAT much better, it's just that pitchers had the fear of 73 put into them.

 

As for the late power surges, best I can find is Darrell Evans. Maybe Brian Downing.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

After talking with Alkeiper, he brought up a good point:

 

The steroid bar started in 1994, but in the 1970s it's pretty common for professional wrestlers to use steroids as well as football players. Is it really that hard to imagine MLB players would do it then as well? So the Hall might be already filled with some roid users, which makes the whole "OMG BONDS CHEATED! GET HIS ASS AWAY FROM THE HALL!" point sort of naive and/or hypocritical.

 

As for perjury, it's odd how Bonds is being prosecuted for it but RAFAEL PALMEIRO, who actually flat out lied ON NATIONAL TELEVISION to Congress, isn't.

[bob_barron 0]

Legally, Palmeiro didn't lie on national television. He said he had never taken steroids period, and the failure test was after the Congressional testimony.

 

So no, Palmeiro should not be prosecuted for perjury.

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

As for perjury, it's odd how Bonds is being prosecuted for it but RAFAEL PALMEIRO, who actually flat out lied ON NATIONAL TELEVISION to Congress, isn't.

 

The man is just jealous of the BLACK MAN! Fight the power!

[Nightwing 0]

Note that I'm not going to argue on whether or not Bonds took steroids. Obviously he probably did. Looking over the career record though, that 73 stands out. Nothing else really does though on the home run front. 49, 73, 46, 45 and 45. Take out that 73 and nothing really looks all that suspicious. I've always wondered why no one seems to note that the home run spike also coincided with moving into a park with a 309 foot right field foul pole distance.

 

Those last numbers are deceptive, because those four years of 40+ Home Runs he was setting records with the amount of intentional walks he was getting. In 2004, nearly a third of all his at-bats were intentional walks, and he still managed to hit 45 Home Runs. His drop off isn't because that 73 was a magical season, but rather everyone in the league didn't dare actually pitch to him. Put those intentional walks to a regular level, and he's getting a lot more Home Runs.