Can you please provide a real example (i.e. non-message board) where the public was "smashed in the face" for supporting Bonds?

If you mean as in actual physical violence, i think you mis-understood my statement.

No, it's called building up a successful case. What advantage would the feds have had if they rushed this case?

No, this case was over 4 years ago. The guilty parties did their time and spent 4 months in jail each. (cus you know, it was such a major crime). The guy who invented the stuff, actually sat down in the lab and created it, got 3 months ...

The fact that it is still going on years and later, chasing one guy, shows that this was nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning. You should read "Gunning for the Big Guy", where the IRS agent that actually wore the wire tap into the gym in the Balco investigation, when interviewed said, we were after Bonds from the word go.

Wow. If you live in a world where this actually happens, I can actually understand your anti-Bonds-haters stance.

You apparently live in shell on some remote island. You have never watched, ESPN, ESPN² or ESPN News?

If you mean as in actual physical violence, i think you mis-understood my statement.

I think he's asking when you saw someone in the mainstream media figuratively "smashed in the face" for supporting Bonds.

You apparently live in shell on some remote island. You have never watched, ESPN, ESPN² or ESPN News?

His name is Stiebferno. That strongly implies a residency in Canada, where we don't regularly get ESPN, probably to Canada's benefit. Besides, the same ESPN which you reference was also cutting away to every Bonds' AB once he got near the record, as was every other network which aired MLB games.

The fact that it is still going on years and later, chasing one guy, shows that this was nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning.

I am a Bonds supporter, because I know in my heart that he is pure as the driven snow. But this is not accurate.

The Feds have been piling up the convictions against athletes and others who fudged the truth before the Grand Jury and in interviews -- Tammy Thomas, Trevor Graham, Marion Jones.

If you mean as in actual physical violence, i think you mis-understood my statement.


I think he's asking when you saw someone in the mainstream media figuratively "smashed in the face" for supporting Bonds.

Yes, of course I did not mean actual physical violence.

Have you actually seen someone in the general public figuratively "smashed in the face" for supporting Barry Bonds? Please provide a concrete (i.e. non-internet) example. As far as I can tell, Barry Bonds' supporters do not face any repercussions in everyday life.

I think he's asking when you saw someone in the mainstream media figuratively "smashed in the face" for supporting Bonds.

Just on ESPN alone ...
Sports Reporters on Sunday Morning.
Anybody that was brought on that show they do in the morning, 1st and 10.
Any guest analyst that tried to show support for Barry on any of their shows, was routinely shouted down.
During the run to his record, ESPN televised a few Giants games, and Barry would sit them out for one reason or another, but it was starting to become obvious, and it prompted one the analyst to say, You don't think he hates us that much do you, that he would hurt his own team, just to spite us.

They know what is up.

edit: Speaking from my own experience, i virtually cannot bring up Barry Bonds to my friends with out the argument getting heated.

Jason Whitlock explicitly said that he was booted from "The Sports Reporters" because he "wouldn'�t participate in their Barry Bonds witch hunt, and help them single Bonds out as the creator of steroids."

I dug this up from the greatest living hitter thread.

Andy: Even more to the point here is what Bonds accomplished before 1999. And though I see his juicing as a HOF disqualifier due to the character clause, that thought shouldn't apply to a discussion like this. And I don't see any way to get around the conclusion that even if you put a huge steroid discount on all of his post-1998 numbers, Bonds is still the best living hitter. I'd probably like to say otherwise, but facts are facts.

Even without a failed piss test, really?

I doubt there is a MLB player that has been piss tested more.

But those tests didn't begin until, what, 2004 or 2005? (You can see how I'm up to speed on all the details here.) But the period under question dates back to 1999, when testing was nonexistent, and it's a period about which his trainer and pusher still refuses to testify under oath. But this has been rehashed a million times, and we all know what we all think about this issue.

I put that together, and I come up with several thoughts:

1. Bonds juiced from 1999 until whatever point he thought he might get caught, probably beginning in 2005, after the congressional furor. For that reason, he wouldn't get my HOF vote. He does, however, get my HOM vote.

2. He probably hasn't juiced since then, and for sake of argument I have to assume that he hasn't. And for that reason, I can't see any reason for a team in need not to sign him, if they've taken all factors into consideration. And that minimum contract offer, which should be easy to test for sincerity, makes those other factors relatively small by comparison to the potential upside.

3. For the "greatest living hitter" debate, the character issue is moot. It's purely about skill. I'd discount Bonds's steroid years numbers, but even doing so, he still goes to the head of the class, though Musial would be close, as might Pujols after the dust settles. Even in his pre-1999 years, Bonds was an extraordinary hitter, and during his juicing years, it obviously wasn't just the steroids that produced those numbers.

4. And if I haven't made it clear a hundred times before, while I consider Bonds a cheat just like all other juicers, whatever penalty he deserves should come from baseball itself and not the courts. And since he hasn't failed a drug test, the only appropriate punishment by "baseball" should be whatever the court of public opinion, and the BBWAA, decides it to be. You and I are individuals with opinions, but if 75% of the writers agree with you on the HOF, so be it. It's not going to be the end of the world either way. This is just one of a million similar debates that go on every day about ethics and values and priorities, many of which may never be resolved. I'm just glad that we have a forum here where we can argue it out without going all mideastern or Balkan.

5. And finally, other than its relevance to the HOF, I don't take character or personality or kindness towards dogs, women or children into consideration when I judge athletes. I'm happily married and not in the market for a male wife or a gay affair. I'll let Bonds's peers deal with those issues.

Bonds juiced from 1999 until whatever point he thought he might get caught, probably beginning in 2005, after the congressional furor. For that reason, he wouldn't get my HOF vote. He does, however, get my HOM vote.

I think it is extremely unlikely that Bonds would have been taking anything after teh Balco bust.

Nobody is "losing sleep" over it

Maybe indirectly because your favorite team plays an inferior left fielder or dh?