I think this one is in the running for worst/misleading title of all time as compared to what the player actually said of 2007.

The crucifixion part seems to be going well.

I think this one is in the running for worst/misleading title of all time as compared to what the player actually said of 2007.

Is this true?

The headline: 'Hard to dispute' that Bonds cheated'

What he said, according to the article:

Brian Johnson said it's "hard to dispute" that former teammate Barry Bonds cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs.

Johnson, appearing Sunday on ESPN's "Outside the Lines," recounted what he told the staff of baseball steroids investigator George Mitchell. Johnson, a catcher with Bonds' San Francisco Giants in 1997 and 1998, also was asked by ESPN about Bonds, who tied Hank Aaron's career home run record on Saturday night.

"You can make a fair argument that he may have been cheating," Johnson said. "Based on what has been documented, it's hard to dispute that argument."

What makes the quote either more or less interesting, though, is the 1997-98 timeframe. There can certainly be more than one way to spin that.

So he went in front of Mitchell and told him his opinion of what was in Game of Shadows. What, he didn't think Mitchell understood what was in his own copy of the book?

For those about to shoot up, we salute you?

Anton Lavey tells all about Barry and steroids!

Just to reiterate what I said in the other thread:

"It was kind of a cloak-and-dagger society. Guys that were taking knew of each other and talked about things among themselves," Johnson said. "What I saw was that guys who were taking would never admit it, would never allow anybody to see. But it was pretty obvious to all of us that they were taking. ... Some people sold their soul to the devil and other people didn't."

In short, Johnson admits that Bonds didn't tell him, and that he didn't see Bonds use; his entire evidence is "it's pretty obvious."

And Brian Johnson's entire experience as a "former teammate" of Bonds was a season and a half in 1997-1998, before anybody claims that Bonds was using.

What makes the quote either more or less interesting, though, is the 1997-98 timeframe. There can certainly be more than one way to spin that.

Not really. I know how you want to spin it, which is that Bonds must have started earlier than previously thought. But since Johnson admits that his opinion comes not from anything he saw or heard, but solely from reading "what has been documented," it's really not interesting at all.


It's not a case, incidentally, in which we can say, "Well, now there's an earlier evidenced use by Bonds," because (1) Johnson doesn't have any evidence, and (2) if there were evidence he was using in 1997, that would contradict both Game of Shadows and Canseco. GoS says he started in 1999 specifically in response to McGwire-Sosa in 1998. Canseco says that he personally introduced Bonds to steroids in 2000.

Bon Scott wouldn't have doubted him.

GoS says he started in 1999 specifically in response to McGwire-Sosa in 1998. Canseco says that he personally introduced Bonds to steroids in 2000.

But GoS is entirely accurate. They say 1999. But Canseco is the only one telling the truth. And he says 2000.

This does not compute! This does not compute!
Norman coordinate. Norman coordinate . . . awwrrkkk.

looks like this brian johnson guy really knows what he's talking about.

maybe he can be that great witness the grand jury been lookin for

Come on Andy, you can read better than that.

The headline says 'Hard to dispute' that Bonds cheated'

But the guy actually says: "You can make a fair argument that he may have been cheating." Jeez, it's hard to say something much more mushy than that. He "may" have been cheating? Sure. He MAY have.

He then goes on to say that it is "hard to dispute that argument" -- i.e., that he MAY have been cheating. What he DOES NOT say is that HE saw ANYTHING in person to support any argument.

This is a non-event gussied up to make an attack on Barry.

Next.

What makes the quote either more or less interesting, though, is the 1997-98 timeframe. There can certainly be more than one way to spin that.

Not really. I know how you want to spin it, which is that Bonds must have started earlier than previously thought. But since Johnson admits that his opinion comes not from anything he saw or heard, but solely from reading "what has been documented," it's really not interesting at all.

David, I wouldn't touch that quote with a ten foot pole. If I want to say "aha!" I'll say "aha!" The other side of the spin is that he wasn't even Bonds's teammate in the year that the juicing started.

In any case, of course it's purely hearsay. It neither adds to nor detracts from the case against Bonds.

But Srul, c'mon. Once again from the story:

"You can make a fair argument that he may have been cheating," Johnson said. "Based on what has been documented, it's hard to dispute that argument."

All I was saying is that the headline was not a distortion of what you could read in the body of the story. Nothing more. Whether or not the story adds anything at all to the evidence (I don't think that it does) is another 'story' altogether.

Mark Guthrie thinks Brian Johnson was juicing back in 1997.

Can't I go back and have that home run stricken from the record? Please....

i can make a FAIR argument that every single guy who played baseball since 1988 MAY have been "cheating"

"cheating" meaning using only androbolic steroids (even leaving out the greenies that willie mickey and hank cheated with)

johnson said exactly nothing that plenty of reporters/fans haven't already said

and i will believe that barry FIRST got steroids from canseco the day some man gets his own self pregnant

It's not a case, incidentally, in which we can say, "Well, now there's an earlier evidenced use by Bonds," because (1) Johnson doesn't have any evidence, and (2) if there were evidence he was using in 1997, that would contradict both Game of Shadows and Canseco. GoS says he started in 1999 specifically in response to McGwire-Sosa in 1998. Canseco says that he personally introduced Bonds to steroids in 2000.

Didn't pearlman also say Bonds started in 1999?

Guys that were taking knew of each other and talked about things among themselves

Okay, this dude believes based on players congregating and talking that they were using steroids. Assuming that one of the player is Bonds, who are the others? Give me another name and I may start taking this #### seriously.

Who else is hard to dispute that may have cheated. If the only person identified is Bonds, I'll just say witch hunt, and if that makes the Bonds hater happy, be happy.

With Curt Schilling, this now makes two eyewitnesses. The noose is tightening!

In any case, of course it's purely hearsay. It neither adds to nor detracts from the case against Bonds.

So what exactly did you find "interesting" about it, "more" or "less"?

Okay, this dude believes based on players congregating and talking that they were using steroids. Assuming that one of the player is Bonds, who are the others? Give me another name and I may start taking this #### seriously.

No, no, no. They weren't talking that they were using steroids; they were talking about "things."


I don't know why the media doesn't just consult Ouija boards as to whether Bonds used steroids; their stories would be approximately as informative.

Oh come on: Johnson winked-winked AND nudged-nudged. What other facts do you need?