“You mean, all I had to do was say I did it.”

So he should have given a shifty apology without saying exactly what he did wrong? Is that really why Giambi is still playing, and Bonds is not? I think it has much more to do with sunk costs, and the fact he was signed for longer.

How do we end the owners’ apparent unholy conspiracy to keep Bonds out of uniform?....

Seems like they think there is collusion.

ANd Rhoden? Really? YOu think he is MSM?

I think it has much more to do with sunk costs, and the fact he was signed for longer.

Not with celebrating him and the fans.

Not with celebrating him and the fans.

And Giants fans booed Bonds mercilessly last year?

One large scapegoat is capable of washing away everyone's sin.

And Giants fans booed Bonds mercilessly last year?

Absolutely not. Do you see Giambi booed mercilessly on the road? Do you see the same vitriol for Giambi from posters here, fans around the league, and the MSM in general?

Do you see Giambi booed mercilessly on the road?

Yes.

Do you see the same vitriol for Giambi from posters here, fans around the league, and the MSM in general?

No

But I don't think Giambi's milder treatment has much to do with his half-assed apologies.

Yes.

I'll attempt to disbelieve. You'll have to link to syringes being thrown on the field this year and the various signs.

You'll have to link to syringes being thrown on the field this year and the various signs.

Didn't know you needed a syringe to boo someone. Could have fooled me.

Didn't know you needed a syringe to boo someone. Could have fooled me.

I have watched the games, and other than the Red Sox (who boo all the Yankees), I don't see any merciless booing. Nothing more than ARod gets. Perhaps we have a different understanding of the booing Bonds got and what Giambi has gotten.

I've seen Giambi targeted/booed many times at the Trop (which isn't exactly your largest crowd). I will concede that Bonds gets harsher treatment than any of the alleged users. But your original response to my post suggested fans around the league are celebrating Giambi's accomplishments, when in reality, much like Bonds, his only friends are to be found at home.

But your original response to my post suggested fans around the league are celebrating Giambi's accomplishments, when in reality, much like Bonds, his only friends are to be found at home.

My first post suggested nothing of the sort. Watch last night's game in Toronto - Giambi's treatment is roughly the same as every other Yankee player. Or Cleveland or well, just about everywhere. The games are available on mlb.tv.

I was under the impression that the Yankees draw a fairly large crowd of their own fans in Toronto, much like here in Tampa (prior to this year).

in reality, much like Bonds, his only friends are to be found at home.

True, though it's also true, as you say, that Bonds almost always got much worse treatment than Giambi in nearly all cities, with the possible exception of Oakland. But that likely had to do as much with his desertion as his steroids.

I do, however, think that if Bonds had owned up even to the minimal extent that Giambi has, he wouldn't have gotten quite the treatment that he has. Or at least I think it might have eased off after a while, if not completely. He's always been a special target of fan hostility, even before BALCO, but I don't recall that outside of Pittsburgh it was ever quite that bad pre-2005. But then I don't follow the NL and I could be wrong.

And before he jumped the A's, IIRC Giambi was always quite popular even outside of Oakland. When he went to the Yankees that killed off most of that, and when he admitted to steroids he really took the heat for awhile. And now his popularity in New York rises and falls with his production. He's been hitting well lately, but as soon as he slumps he'll be booed just like before, and you'll start hearing all those "steroids" chants all over again, trust me.

So he should have given a shifty apology without saying exactly what he did wrong?

Apparently, there was nothing shifty about what Giambi told the grand jury.

Even if Bonds had never taken steroids or any other illegal PEDs, he was the most hated player in all of baseball. Before he came to San Francisco, when he was a Pirate, Giants fans (and announcers on the Giants' station) hated Bonds. When he was at ASU, his teammates hated him. When he was at Serra High School, he was widely disliked.

Bonds was hated because of his extraordinarily unfriendly demeanor -- to many of his teammates, his coaches, fans, the media, and so on. (He's not unfriendly to everyone, of course, and thus has some real friends and admirers among the much larger number of those who know him and despise him. But even Willie Mays is aware that Bonds's personality, his pricklieness and willingness to be a prick, make life difficult for him. Mays has said that publicly.) Bonds was also hated for so long because he was a great, great talent. If he had ever just been an average or below average major leaguer, no one would have put up with his crap. He would have been shunned out of the majors at 28, rather than 43. No one tolerates a mediocre jerk -- ask Shawn Chacon.*

The fact that he is now disliked and out of work and Giambi is again popular, despite the fact that both used PEDs, has far more to do with the fact that Giambi has always been a friendly guy -- he was the most popular Athletic among his teammates, the media and the fans** when he was in Oakland, while Bonds has always been just the opposite. If Bonds had admitted his steroid usage -- even in a cryptic way like Giambi did -- it wouldn't make any difference. Steroids are simply the excuse that clubs, the media and the majority of fans now use against Bonds to express the hatred for him that has always been there, due, of course, to his personality.

I wish it weren't the case. I'd love to see Barry play some more. I really don't care about a player's personality, just his performance. I am fully aware that a lot of guys who come across as great guys are probably phonies, anyhow; and players who seem like jerks might seem a lot better if I actually knew them. And even if I knew them and disliked them, I still want to see the best players play. But Bonds will never play again. And he need only look in the mirror to see why.

* I would not be surprised to know that Bobby Bonds, Jr. -- Barry's brother -- was a far less talented jerk who was never tolerated.

** Maybe Miguel Tejada was more popular among the fans.

Apparently, there was nothing shifty about what Giambi told the grand jury.

Yeah, no kidding. It's amazing how the distinction between telling the truth under oath and committing perjury appears to be completely lost and/or meaningless to guys like William C. Rhoden and the rest of the pathetic, sycophantic Bonds fanchildren.

Apparently, there was nothing shifty about what Giambi told the grand jury.

While I don't think the case against Bonds is likely to succeed, and apparently won't interfere with the baseball season, that won't stop it from making headlines all year long (even if for mundane reasons like the re-filing of a complaint). That, in and of itself, is a fair justification for most teams to pass on him.

However, I don't think too many fans make their distinctions between the two based on the perjury charge. And testimony compelled under penalty of perjury is not an apology.

Yeah, no kidding. It's amazing how the distinction between telling the truth under oath and committing perjury appears to be completely lost and/or meaningless to guys like William C. Rhoden and the rest of the pathetic, sycophantic Bonds fanchildren.

Sock, even setting aside the fact that Bonds didn't commit perjury, nobody gives a #### about that.

Sock, even setting aside the fact that Bonds didn't commit perjury

David, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we wait for the trial to be over before stating that Bonds did, or did not, commit perjury? How can you be so sure that it is a "fact" that Bonds did not commit perjury?

Sock, even setting aside the fact that Bonds didn't commit perjury, nobody gives a #### about that.

Nobody? Have you taken a survey?

I'd be quite surprised if any team signed Bonds at this point. The only thing that would surprise me more is if he had to endure chants of PER-JUR-ER!!! on the road.

David, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we wait for the trial to be over before stating that Bonds did, or did not, commit perjury? How can you be so sure that it is a "fact" that Bonds did not commit perjury?

Experience. If they had evidence, events wouldn't be playing out as they have been the last couple of years.

ok..10 days for roid ridden Bondo carcass to get ready to hit dl

Ortiz back about that time to hit dh

good article.

I've given this a lot of thought and I've finally come to the conclusion that William Rhoden is retarded.

Experience. If they had evidence, events wouldn't be playing out as they have been the last couple of years.

Exactly. Like, the experience that he just know Clemens wasn't ####### Mindy MCready before she was 18 too. That sort of thing never happens either.

Sock, even setting aside the fact that Bonds didn't commit perjury, nobody gives a #### about that.

Nobody, David? Then why is Bonds under indictment?

Let's see. Strike one is the fact Bonds didn't lie, strike two is that nobody care he lied.

I'm sure strike three will be that Bonds will beat the rap.

Nobody, David? Then why is Bonds under indictment?

I meant nobody who's a rational human being, Kevin; I wasn't talking about you. People may care about their mistaken belief that Bonds used steroids; people may care that Bonds hasn't begged for forgiveness. But nobody cares about the notion that it would have been "perjury" if it were false.

Well, somebody cares because Bonds is going to jail, dude.

David, take your Zoloft, for Christ's sake. You're making a fool of yourself again.

Well, it seems strange that Giambi was a self-righteous little prick (literally?) about the steroids issue and it turns out he was one of the worst abusers and now it's all good.

But yeah, maybe it's his wonderful personality and lovely relationships with other players that make him accepted again...

And with that ability to lie directly to everyone, why do we believe that he's not on HGH or something now? He may be or may not be, but certainly him saying he's clean means zero.

And with that ability to lie directly to everyone, why do we believe that he's not on HGH or something now?

We don't. He's still a lying, cheating sack of #### to me.

I must have missed the part where Giambi broke Hank Aaron's home run record, thus making him and Bonds analogous in the eyes of millions of baseball fans around the country.

So you are telling me that Bonds is playing and Giambi is not because Bonds is a better player.

That's great for the game.

It just drives me nuts that we aren't fielding the best teams in the world. I'm not saying we ever will--there's always going to be some Brien Taylor somewhere, but didn't we learn anything from the first 70 years about not ####### up the game by excluding players?

If we need to properly punish the users, why don't we give a team back to Bud that always plays on the road, is managed and staffed by LaRussa and other management that loved steroids, they can recruit Bonds, Clemens, Giambi, Caminiti's ghost and put a big scarlet "S" embroidered on a syringe sticking out of an ass on their uniforms.

The Rickey probably would play for them too just because he wants to play, wouldn't care and probably deserves a chance anyway...

I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just pointing out what I thought was a pretty obvious fact, that everyone in this thread - with all their faux-confusion - seemed to be intentionally ignoring.

Bonds broke potentially the most hallowed sports record there is, and did it by cheating. Giambi was merely a very good player who cheated. Is it really that surprising that a lot of fans have reacted differently to them since then?

It just drives me nuts that we aren't fielding the best teams in the world.

Um, we ARE fielding the best teams in the world. The worst team in MLB could beat the best team anywhere else.

But I don't think Giambi's milder treatment has much to do with his half-assed apologies.


I think it's because he's White

"Bonds broke potentially the most hallowed sports record there is, and did it by cheating. Giambi was merely a very good player who cheated. Is it really that surprising that a lot of fans have reacted differently to them since then?"

Exxxactly. Also, one guy has a federal indictment hanging over his head, and the other one doesn't. Might be an important distinction as well.

However, if Bonds grew a mustache that made him look like a highway trooper, I think this might tip the scales.

"If we need to properly punish the users, why don't we give a team back to Bud that always plays on the road, is managed and staffed by LaRussa and other management that loved steroids, they can recruit Bonds, Clemens, Giambi, Caminiti's ghost and put a big scarlet "S" embroidered on a syringe sticking out of an ass on their uniforms."

Then I hope you have a lot of roster space for that team so that the many other players who either have or are still are using steroids or HGH, and that weren't named in the Mitchell Report, can be included.

People may care about their mistaken belief that Bonds used steroids

David, do you really believe that Bonds didn't use steroids?

But I don't think Giambi's milder treatment has much to do with his half-assed apologies.

I think it's because he's White

Hey, Wok, you don't have to worry about the Klan stalking you here on BTF. You can just call Giambi "white." We won't drop a dime on you.

I was waiting for a new Bonds thread (wow, my life is empty) to bring up someone else: Kenny Lofton. Lofton had a .380 OBP last year, was 21/25 on SBs and has always kept in shape. I know he may have hurt himself by going off on Torre last year and may be considered kind of a jerk, but I actually think he has a bigger gripe than Bonds: no indictment, no steroids links, three years younger. And jerk or no, he has been on many post-season teams. Lofton even did pretty well in the 2007 post-season. I was hoping that either the Padres or Reds would pick him up in ST. Has there been a lot of talk about this that I missed? Did he say he does not WANT to play anymore? Almost every team in baseball is carrying a backup OF who is less useful than Lofton is.

Rich and Andy are right in 17 and 15: in many places Bonds has always been booed, harshly, loudly and viciously. The only two visiting players San Diegans would really go off on were Bonds and Deion Sanders. A few guys would stand up and cup their hands, yell racial #### sometimes, before almost every at bat of either players Giant. fans in SD would try to drown them out at times, but this was going on even when Bonds played for the Pirates.

The Padres had a pregame thing honoring the 1998 team last night; Kevin Towers came out in a Caminiti jersey. The announcers called it a "goosebump" moment.

As to Bonds and Giambi, there are several obvious differences, as has been pointed out.

Did he say he does not WANT to play anymore? Almost every team in baseball is carrying a backup OF who is less useful than Lofton is.

Evidently he turned a team or two down because he wanted more money.

But nobody cares about the notion that it would have been "perjury" if it were false.

Yet people care that Giambi told the truth before the grand jury as evidenced by how well is now treated by many people (not to mention that he wasn't indicted), so your point is demonstrably false.

Um, we ARE fielding the best teams in the world. The worst team in MLB could beat the best team anywhere else.

My fault--sorry. Meant to say "possible". We might have had the best teams in the world in MLB during segregation (I'm not sure--due to the talent concentration, I think some of the best years of the best teams in NeL could probably have taken on all comers...) but we really messed up the history of the game by fielding inferior teams...

David, do you really believe that Bonds didn't use steroids?

Well, add it up:
* No positive test.
* No eyewitnesses.
* Conte, who has not hesitated to rat out many of his clients, denies Bonds' guilt.
* No other suppliers doing so.
* No DNA-and-steroids-filled syringes.
* Unlike with Clemens, no teammates, trainers, coaches., who claimed Bonds admitted it to or discussed it with them.
* None of these suppliers/coaches/trainers/teammates/etc. have made any accusations, despite the fact that Bonds is allegedly such a jerk to everyone that they'd have no reason to protect him.
* Has continued to hit like an MVP candidate, even in his mid-40s, despite:
** Ongoing testing.
** The government breathing down his neck to the point where he can't sneeze in his own bedroom without the government knowing about it.
** His alleged supplier(s) being out of business.

Yet people care that Giambi told the truth before the grand jury as evidenced by how well is now treated by many people (not to mention that he wasn't indicted), so your point is demonstrably false.

Uh, no. You're assuming your conclusion.

David,

Didn't his supposed mistress rat him out? That's the only real point I can disagree with you on there.

David, that's a great list, but you neglected to answer the question.

So, here it is again: Do you really believe that Bonds didn't use steroids?

Uh, no. You're assuming your conclusion.

Then please offer a foundation for your claim that "nobody gives a ####" about whether or not Giambi told the truth before the grand jury.

Bonds was voted a starter by the fans for the 2007 All Star Game.

Didn't his supposed mistress rat him out? That's the only real point I can disagree with you on there.

While his supposed mistress -- I'm not sure there's doubt Bell was his mistress, but I suppose it's good to be skeptical about everything in this story -- did say things (and produced evidence) which painted Bonds in a very negative light, I'm pretty sure that even she doesn't claim that she actually ever witnessed Bonds using steroids, saw any steroids in his possession, or saw any steroid paraphernalia.

I think you're right that Bell is the strongest witness against Bonds, but I think that's about like Molina being the fastest player on your team. (Let me put it this way: she's also a witness against Bonds on tax evasion, and they didn't even bother to try to prosecute him for that.)


Ryan: without any evidence, sure. Now, if the government has a surprise witness who is going to testify that he or she saw Bonds being injected with steroids, or saw steroids bottles in his house, or whatever (and that witness is credible), I'll change my position. For some reason, Kevin sees it as a bad thing to base one's opinion on the actual evidence, but I don't. If I get new evidence, I'll reevaluate my views.

"Bonds was voted a starter by the fans for the 2007 All Star Game."

Maybe that was because all of the Internet-voting fans in China thought "Barry Bonds" in English meant Yao Ming.

David, thanks for the response. It makes it easier to understand your position on collusion if you are of the opinion that Bonds never used PEDs.

Incidentally, in terms of evidence, wouldn't the testimony of Sheffield also be of significant use in evaluating Bonds' alleged PED use? Also, what about the positive test for amphetamine use? Doesn't the testimony of Bonds, with respect to his acknowledgement that he used two substances which resembled the cream and the clear (although he maintained that he was of the understanding that they were other substances - flaxseed oil) play into the evidence that he may have used PEDs, if not knowingly?

In my opinion, to believe that Bonds used PEDs is not an unreasonable position based on the evidence available. To believe that he used the intentionally is also not an unreasonable position. To conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that he used intentionally is much harder, but we are not discussing things at the level of a legal standard.

To give you my position, since you stated yours, I believe that Bonds knowingly used PEDs, and PEDs help performance. I also don't care that he did, since I'm also of the opinion that PED use was incredibly common throughout baseball. I also would like to see him play again. However, I recognize that my opinions on PED use do not necessarily match that of those who make personnel and public relations decisions in baseball, so I'm not particularly bothered by the decision of individual GMs to arrive at the conclusion that Bonds would not be worth the headaches that he may cause. Based on the above, I also don't think that we are seeing an incident of collusion.

Also, with respect to your evaluation of collusion, I still think you need to consider the impact of the belief among baseball personnel that Bonds:
a) Used PEDs prior to testing
b) Continued to use PEDs once testing was implemented
c) Gained significant benefits from PED use
Whether or not any of the above is true with respect to Bonds is a separate question, but this is what baseball (as a whole - not necessarily every single individual) appears to believe.

Whether or not any of the above is true with respect to Bonds is a separate question, but this is what baseball (as a whole - not necessarily every single individual) appears to believe.

They might just believe that it protects them from more government intrusion into the sport if they allow the poster boy to sink out of the public consciousness, rather than give Bonds the opportunity to add to his legend.

Imagine Bonds comes back and is leading the league in HR at the all-star break? MLB has put a container on the scandal by catching a few mediocrities and dropping the hammer on them. The media is already moving toward the conception that we're back to relatively clean baseball. Bonds with good production is terrible for sustaining that fiction. Either it is evidence that he can perform exceptionally well despite age without PEDs, or evidence that he's taking something that makes the MLB testers look pretty incompetent.

What Rich said in #17. There's no grand conspiracy to keep Barry Bonds out of baseball.

Unlike with Clemens, no teammates, trainers, coaches., who claimed Bonds admitted it to or discussed it with them

(courtesy of Eraser-X) Gary Sheffield says "Hello!"

I don't think the conspiracy is all that grand, actually. I think the owners know Bonds is a fall guy for the steroids era and baseball is about past the scandals at this point. I think they talk about it and there's a general sentiment among them that it's better for the sport if no team signs Bonds. No need for any orders from Selig or double-super-secret memo.

But that is collusive behavior. Good luck proving it, of course.

(courtesy of Eraser-X) Gary Sheffield says "Hello!"

and Reality says good-bye to kevin.

Sheffield never said Bonds did steroids.

Sheffield never said HE did steroids.

Sheffield testified that he used a cream and some drops, but that he did not know what was in them.

Bonds in fact testified to pretty much the same thing -- calling them flax seed oil and an arthritis cream.

Was it the cream and the clear? At least right now, nobody can prove it.

Now Srul is off his meds too. Is there an MD here so Srul can get his Risperdal?

This NPR interview with Sheffield was typical of his comments on Bonds and steroids — he never knowingly took anything illegal. His comments here and elsewhere mirror Bonds' testimony about the cream and clear.

Srul's pretty much exactly bullseye with his comments.

Don't bother, Softball.

corporal kevin doesn't bother with the truth, he'd much rather make things up or just keep repeating lies.

I'm surprised he didn't find a job in the bush administration.

kevin,

would you please give a link to gary sheffield saying that bonds did steroids or even told sheffield that he used steroids?

kind of strange that the government isn't getting testimony from him to nail bonds' ass, dontcha think?

------

and it more than obvious that bonds has been made the fall guy for the entire steroid era, seeing as how he invented them and forced so many other players at gunpoint to shoot up and had this huge distribution network as well.

Apparently, there was nothing shifty about what Giambi told the grand jury.

What was shifty about Bonds' testimony?

What was shifty about Bonds' testimony?

Ask the US Attorney that sought an indictment and the grand jury that returned the indictment.

What was shifty about Bonds' testimony?

In Giambi's testimony, he admitted using virtually every substance under the sun. It just makes Bonds "I don't know what it was, but I took it anyway" testimony seem shifty in comparison, even if Bonds was completely truthful.

It just makes Bonds "I don't know what it was, but I took it anyway" testimony seem shifty in comparison

Except he never said anything of the sort.

would you please give a link to gary sheffield saying that bonds did steroids or even told sheffield that he used steroids?

I think the reasoning goes as follows:

1) Sheffield says he used substances that resembled the cream and clear.
2) Sheffield says he got them from Bonds' trainer, and that Bonds' trainer got them from BALCO.
3) Sheffield says he saw Bonds use the same cream and clear.
4) Sheffield says he thinks that he was unknowingly given PEDs in the form of at least the cream.

For a link:

Sheffield dismisses latest steroid claims

But Sheffield responded by saying that, with the exception of unknowingly taking steroid cream, while working out with Bonds after the 2001 season, he has never knowingly taken steroids and has nothing to conceal.

Except he never said anything of the sort.

"I never asked Greg" about what the products contained, Bonds testified. "When he said it was flaxseed oil, I just said, 'Whatever.'

Link

We're talking about a very fine distinction here.

Yes, he knew it was flaxseed oil.

Yeah, sure he did. I mean, why buy flaxseed oil at the local GNC when you can spend 10's of thousands of dollars for it getting it from Conte?

Yes, he knew it was flaxseed oil.

No. It means he says he was told it was flaxseed oil. He didn't know it was, and couldn't be bothered to check it himself.

In Year 6 of the investigation, prosecutors decided last month to lean on Greg Anderson's wife, supposedly premised on statements she made in 2003.

But they haven't thought to give Sheffield a ding-a-ling.

Ri-i-ight. (That's the cue for yet more posters to write "if he didn't do it, then why is he indicted?")

No. It means he says he was told it was flaxseed oil. He didn't know it was, and couldn't be bothered to check it himself.

Ryan, I don't understand what you mean. Bonds isn't a chemist. How was he going to "check it himself"? More importantly, why would he check it himself? If you said had a headache and your friend handed you a pill and told you it was ibuprofen, would you send it out to a lab to find out? Or would you assume it was ibuprofen? And if someone asked you later what you took, wouldn't you say "ibuprofen"?

And if some government agent later accused you of taking some illicit substance, and you denied it, would it be reasonable for people to sneer at you and say, "How can he not know what he took?"

Yeah, sure he did. I mean, why buy flaxseed oil at the local GNC when you can spend 10's of thousands of dollars for it getting it from Conte?

Bonds didn't spend "10's of thousands of dollars" getting anything from Conte. Bonds didn't get anything from Conte. So says Conte, the same guy who willingly named names of athletes left and right.

So says Conte, the same guy who willingly named names of athletes left and right.

Apparently, it was Conte who leaked the grand jury testimony to Williams and Fainaru-Wada.

So you got that to contend with too.

David, give it up. This is such a loser for you. You're worse than Clemens when it comes to not knowing when you're beaten.

Rich Rifkin nailed this way back in post 17:

Steroids are simply the excuse that clubs, the media and the majority of fans now use against Bonds to express the hatred for him that has always been there, due, of course, to his personality.

Then Nieporent finished it here:

* No positive test.
* No eyewitnesses.
* Conte, who has not hesitated to rat out many of his clients, denies Bonds' guilt.
* No other suppliers doing so.
* No DNA-and-steroids-filled syringes.
* Unlike with Clemens, no teammates, trainers, coaches., who claimed Bonds admitted it to or discussed it with them.
* None of these suppliers/coaches/trainers/teammates/etc. have made any accusations, despite the fact that Bonds is allegedly such a jerk to everyone that they'd have no reason to protect him.
* Has continued to hit like an MVP candidate, even in his mid-40s, despite:
** Ongoing testing.
** The government breathing down his neck to the point where he can't sneeze in his own bedroom without the government knowing about it.
** His alleged supplier(s) being out of business.

OK, what about this can't you Bonds-haters understand? I can hardly wait to see what Kevin says when Bonds is cleared; I'd REALLY like to see him go to Boston after that.

I think the reasoning goes as follows:

1) Sheffield says he used substances that resembled the cream and clear.

Of course, "the clear" is a clear liquid, which means that everyone on the planet has taken a substance which resembles it. And I haven't heard that the cream looks like anything other than a topical ointment, which means that most people on the planet -- well, in the U.S., anyway -- have taken a substance which resembles it.

Incidentally, the media keeps reporting this as "Sheffield admitting using the cream and the clear," just as they keep misreporting that Bonds admitted that. IIRC -- and I went back and googled to see if there was anything different I could find, and I couldn't find anything different -- Sheffield has no firsthand knowledge of this; he's just assuming that because people tell him it was the cream and the clear, it was.

Sheffield and Bonds tell consistent stories: they had no knowledge that anything they took were steroids, and still have no firsthand knowledge of it, and whatever they took "didn't work."

2) Sheffield says he got them from Bonds' trainer, and that Bonds' trainer got them from BALCO.

Not sure about the second half of this one; Sheffield says he got nutritional supplements from BALCO via Anderson, but I'm not sure he knew that the source of any cream was BALCO.

3) Sheffield says he saw Bonds use the same cream and clear.

I'm not sure about this one, either; can you point me to that?

4) Sheffield says he thinks that he was unknowingly given PEDs in the form of at least the cream.

I'm not sure that this is accurate either, but assuming it is, what value is his opinion on that subject? He knows he was given an ointment from Anderson at one point; he has no basis for "thinking" what it is one way or the other, other than the fact that everyone's telling him it was.

Apparently, it was Conte who leaked the grand jury testimony to Williams and Fainaru-Wada.

So you got that to contend with too.

Jesus Christ are you dishonest. You just make up facts left and right. "Apparently" it was no such thing. It was not Conte. It was Troy Ellerman, who eventually confessed and is now in jail for doing so.


EDIT: And what on earth would that have to do with the price of tea in China anyway? It's not even responsive to the point I raised.

Bonds didn't spend "10's of thousands of dollars" getting anything from Conte

According to testimony, almost all of his supplements from BALCO and other suppliers, were provided for free.

Like, the experience that he just know Clemens wasn't ####### Mindy MCready before she was 18 too

Well, somebody cares because Bonds is going to jail, dude.

why buy flaxseed oil at the local GNC when you can spend 10's of thousands of dollars for it getting it from Conte?

Apparently, it was Conte who leaked the grand jury testimony to Williams and Fainaru-Wada.

is there a bigger media sheep than Kevin? this idiot is their target audience.

Ryan, I don't understand what you mean. Bonds isn't a chemist. How was he going to "check it himself"? More importantly, why would he check it himself? If you said had a headache and your friend handed you a pill and told you it was ibuprofen, would you send it out to a lab to find out? Or would you assume it was ibuprofen? And if someone asked you later what you took, wouldn't you say "ibuprofen"?

I meant nothing more than Bonds thinks/thought he was given flaxseed oil, but that he didn't know whether he really was given flaxseed oil.

2) Sheffield says he got them from Bonds' trainer, and that Bonds' trainer got them from BALCO.

Not sure about the second half of this one; Sheffield says he got nutritional supplements from BALCO via Anderson, but I'm not sure he knew that the source of any cream was BALCO.

3) Sheffield says he saw Bonds use the same cream and clear.

I'm not sure about this one, either; can you point me to that?

Here you go:

A sixth witness, Yankees outfielder Gary Sheffield, testified that while he trained with Bonds in the Bay Area before the 2002 baseball season, Bonds had arranged for him to receive "the cream," "the clear" and "red beans," which the prosecutors identified as steroid pills manufactured in Mexico.

Sheffield said he had never been told that the substances were steroids. Bonds also was using "the cream" and "the clear," Sheffield said.

"Nothing was between me and Greg," Sheffield testified. "Barry pretty much controlled everything. ... It was basically Barry (saying), 'Trust me. Do what I do.'

"... I know I've seen Greg give Barry the same thing I was taking. I didn't see him taking those red beans, but I seen him taking this (clear) and this cream here."

Link

4) Sheffield says he thinks that he was unknowingly given PEDs in the form of at least the cream.

I'm not sure that this is accurate either, but assuming it is, what value is his opinion on that subject? He knows he was given an ointment from Anderson at one point; he has no basis for "thinking" what it is one way or the other, other than the fact that everyone's telling him it was.

From the link (and quote) in 71:

But Sheffield responded by saying that, with the exception of unknowingly taking steroid cream, while working out with Bonds after the 2001 season, he has never knowingly taken steroids and has nothing to conceal.

I agree that there's limited value in it, other than Sheffield agreeing that the substances he was provided it appears to resemble that of the "cream". I was merely trying to evaluate the reasoning that Kevin was using in his statement about Sheffield and Bonds.

I agree that there's limited value in it

I think there is great value here.

"red beans," which the prosecutors identified as steroid pills manufactured in Mexico.

I didn't see him [bonds] taking those red beans

he [sheff] has never knowingly taken steroids and has nothing to conceal.

???

OK, what about this can't you Bonds-haters understand? I can hardly wait to see what Kevin says when Bonds is cleared; I'd REALLY like to see him go to Boston after that.

What part about the fact that his career is over is it that you Bonds butt-boys can't understand?

Teams are going to want him even less next year than they do now, and they don't really want him now at all.

he [sheff] has never knowingly taken steroids and has nothing to conceal.

You do realize that there was more to the quote, right? You wouldn't be engaging in selective editing, would you?

To reinforce:

But Sheffield responded by saying that, with the exception of unknowingly taking steroid cream, while working out with Bonds after the 2001 season, he has never knowingly taken steroids and has nothing to conceal.

The bold part is relevant, since Sheffield says he saw Bonds using what he believes to be the same cream, and believes that it contained a steroid or steroid-like substance. It doesn't, however, prove that it was actually the same substance, or that Bonds knew what it was either. It does add evidence to indicate that Bonds may have used a PED.

Now, is the above sufficient for a perjury conviction? Of course not.

I've given this a lot of thought and I've finally come to the conclusion that William Rhoden is retarded.

I don't attack people, just positions.


"red beans," which the prosecutors identified as steroid pills manufactured in Mexico.
I didn't see him [bonds] taking those red beans

So this is what would have happened to Neo if he hadn't taken the blue pill?

So this is what would have happened to Neo if he hadn't taken the blue pill?

I'm not sure which is worse - a federal indictment, or the Matrix sequels. Tough choice for Neo.

The bold part is relevant, since Sheffield says he saw Bonds using what he believes to be the same cream, and believes that it contained a steroid or steroid-like substance. It doesn't, however, prove that it was actually the same substance, or that Bonds knew what it was either. It does add evidence to indicate that . Now, is the above sufficient for a perjury conviction? Of course not.

Bonds has always maintained he did not know what was in the cream and clear, and thats where i have always given him the benefit of doubt. He is a professional athlete, even the son of a professional athlete, so I imagine he has had trainers of all sorts rubbing creams and lotions on his body for 35 years, or more. I doubt he knew the ingredients of every lotion that has been applied. Why would he.

As to the clear. Bonds worked with Balco on their ZMA [spelling] product, a legal product. Barry even did an ad for it. He also gave blood samples for analysis to Balco, to get back nutritional information, and they prescribed supplements based upon that nutritional information. This was all very legal, and I don't think I have heard anybody suggest other wise. Its possible Bonds thought the clear was part of that. Again. He gets the benefit of doubt.

The Red Beans are different, however. Those are known steroids, and Sheffield took them openly, but clearly said that he didn't see Barry take them. Thats telling.

What part about the fact that his career is over is it that you Bonds butt-boys can't understand?
Teams are going to want him even less next year than they do now, and they don't really want him now at all.

Yeah, you've mentioned that once or twice. Every word is a searing sword of bitter truth to your imaginary readership who wake up each morning thinking anew, "Maybe today. Maybe today is the day my Barry returns."

It's more than a little ironic to see some of the same people who objected most viscerally to Bonds' PED usage creaming today over the blackballing, as if it's some sort of vindication of their position. For them, "the ends justify the means" is a one-way street.

OK, what about this can't you Bonds-haters understand? I can hardly wait to see what Kevin says when Bonds is cleared

Well, since that scenario has zero chance of ever coming to pass, my advice to you is to hold off on holding your breath on that one.

Better still, why don't you hold your breath? Like, starting now.

It was not Conte. It was Troy Ellerman, who eventually confessed and is now in jail for doing so.

You mean the Ellerman that is Conte's lawyer? That Ellerman?

Damn are you dishonest.

Bonds has always maintained he did not know what was in the cream and clear, and thats where i have always given him the benefit of doubt.

That's a reasonable position. Although I disagree with your conclusion, based on the evidence, it is possible.

He is a professional athlete, even the son of a professional athlete, so I imagine he has had trainers of all sorts rubbing creams and lotions on his body for 35 years, or more. I doubt he knew the ingredients of every lotion that has been applied. Why would he.

As to the clear. Bonds worked with Balco on their ZMA [spelling] product, a legal product. Barry even did an ad for it. He also gave blood samples for analysis to Balco, to get back nutritional information, and they prescribed supplements based upon that nutritional information. This was all very legal, and I don't think I have heard anybody suggest other wise. Its possible Bonds thought the clear was part of that.

It is possible. The problem with the above, however, is that it only addresses whether Bonds unknowingly took steroids - even if he did, players are ultimately responsible for what they put in their bodies. If true, it would be sufficient to get him off on the perjury charges, but would not absolve him of steroid use.

The Red Beans are different, however. Those are known steroids, and Sheffield took them openly, but clearly said that he didn't see Barry take them. Thats telling.

Well, what it really says is that Sheffield trusted Anderson in the same way that Bonds trusted Anderson. I doubt that these pills were labeled "STEROIDS!!!" and, as you note with Bonds, Sheffield was also receiving vitamins and supplements from Balco - perhaps he also assumed that the red beans were part of that. After all, it was the check in payment for these vitamins which first tied Sheffield to Balco.

I also can't find a reference to say that Sheffield actually used the "red beans", but merely that he received them. Of course, I haven't looked very hard, as merely being in receipt is somewhat damning.

It's more than a little ironic to see some of the same people who objected most viscerally to Bonds' PED usage creaming today over the blackballing, as if it's some sort of vindication of their position. For them, "the ends justify the means" is a one-way street.

Ah, but this is as it ever was. Few people believe that the ends justify the means for positions with which they disagree -- they don't agree with the ends in the first place, so if the means are unpalatable to them, they're sure as heck not going to be okay with them. Doing something bad for the (perceived) greater good is something "we" don't want the bad guys to do, only the good guys. (Of course, sometimes "we" don't even want the good guys to do it, but we certainly very rarely want "them, the bad guys" to do it).

It's more than a little ironic to see some of the same people who objected most viscerally to Bonds' PED usage creaming today over the blackballing, as if it's some sort of vindication of their position. For them, "the ends justify the means" is a one-way street.

What about those of us who don't take any joy out of Bonds not playing, but also don't think that it's a result of collusion?

No harm, no foul. You ain't "some of the same people."

I meant nothing more than Bonds thinks/thought he was given flaxseed oil, but that he didn't know whether he really was given flaxseed oil.

WADR, Ryan, you didn't just say that he didn't know; you said "couldn't be bothered to check it out himself." That phrasing "couldn't be bothered to do X" implies at least laziness, and at worst negligence, in not doing so.

WADR, Ryan, you didn't just say that he didn't know; you said "couldn't be bothered to check it out himself." That phrasing "couldn't be bothered to do X" implies at least laziness, and at worst negligence, in not doing so.

As noted above, a player is ultimately responsible for what he puts into his body - a professional athlete not checking it out is either laziness or negligence:

"I never asked Greg" about what the products contained, Bonds testified. "When he said it was flaxseed oil, I just said, 'Whatever.'

If he asks to see the bottle, then he can at least say he made a legitimate effort to check.

It doesn't mean, however, that he did so out of a deliberate attempt to avoid knowing, just that he couldn't be bothered to check at that time. Now, if you want to get into a discussion over whether or not the average person would double check what their good friend is telling them they're taking, or has a legal obligation to do so, then it's a whole different ball game.

Besides, it's all moot since Bonds isn't being charged with negligence, but perjury. No matter whether or not he asked, it wouldn't be nearly enough to get anything even approaching a conviction without significant additional evidence. I have no idea as to whether they have that additional evidence.

By the way, what does WADR mean?

At this point I can no longer figure out who to root against, the Bonds' haters or the Bonds' apologists, both sides have either apparently been:

1: drinking their flavor of kool-aid far too long; or
2: decided their debating opponent is dishonest so there is no reason for them not to argue dishonestly as well

Ahhh... "The adversary system, based upon the curious premise that out of the clash of lies, the truth will emerge"

You mean the Ellerman that is Conte's lawyer? That Ellerman?

Yes, that Ellerman. See, we have these things called "names"; they're given to children at birth, to help us tell people apart. Ellerman's parents called him "Troy Ellerman" to distinguish him from the guy whose parents named him "Victor Conte." Ellerman is not Conte. They're different people. There's a reason Ellerman was sentenced to 33 months in prison for the leak, and Conte was not prosecuted for the leak: Conte had nothing to do with it.


And once again, all of this has nothing to do with the topic. I said that Conte never accused Bonds of using steroids. Then you started babbling utter non-sequiturs about leaked grand jury testimony. But Conte didn't testify before that grand jury, since he was the target, and nobody in that leaked testimony accused Bonds of using steroids. The statement I made is unrebutted: Conte never accused Bonds of using steroids.

It is possible. The problem with the above, however, is that it only addresses whether Bonds unknowingly took steroids - even if he did, players are ultimately responsible for what they put in their bodies. If true, it would be sufficient to get him off on the perjury charges, but would not absolve him of steroid use.

It's true that the Olympic testing regime is a strict liability offense, and other sports have followed that lead. But our criminal system is not, and neither was any purported baseball rule against steroids before 2004. In other words, he wouldn't need to be "absolved" of steroid use before that date, if he took it unknowingly.