This is not my doing.

Alexander Pope was right: drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

The actual math boils down to the following: Bonds hit well, Bonds for a time took anabolics, hence anabolics likely have greater-than-zero positive effect on hitting.

To conclude from 'greater-than-zero positive effect' that 'Bonds' record is the result of steroid use' is.. um..

..let's just say I'm surprised this kid could pass Stats 101 at Sac State, much less MIT.

Full disclosure: I have a math degree.

Well, I'm no good at math, but I can do premises. And as I see it, his argument is built on two premises, one of which is false (Bonds admitted taking steroids) and one of which is inconclusive (steroid use has a practically significant effect on baseball performance).

if a woman (given these parameters) has a positive mammography she is still unlikely to actually have breast cancer! [...] if two unlikely events that are apparently unrelated occur at the same time, they probably are related even if we don't know it yet.

Is this a non sequitur, or did several pages get left out of the posted version of this piece?

Actually, one thing in the main argument here is sound enough. Two guys in baseball history have hit 70 HR in a season. Both of them engaged in steroid-assisted body-building -- or at least, to believe that either of them was unjuiced is like believing that clapping will help Tinker Bell recover from poison. So you have to be tremendously committed to the steroids-do-nothing position to opine that neither Bonds nor McGwire was helped in his slugging by steroids. As DiCaprio says, maybe a little, maybe more. But very likely, something.

This part, though, I don't get:

is it a coincidence that of the very few players who have been proven to actually have taken steroids, he has had the most singular career after the age of 35??

Where's the coincidence? There seems to me only one thing going on. Barry Bonds is the best player to have juiced. So, he's had the best results. This surprises anyone?

Bonds's age in his peak years says very little to me except that Bonds aged most unusually. Sure, he's hit a lot of home runs. But so have a lot of other known juicers, and none of them is leading the majors in OPS at the age of 43.

Man, I'm glad that controversy is solved. A BBTN world without steroid threads dawns.

i am getting tired of people saying that bonds has been "proven" to have taken steroids. or that he admitted he used steroids.

all these people who are supposed to be smart and they won't even read the actual papers

and most of these the very same people screaming at joe morgan
for refusing to read billy beane's book

This article could not be more wrong. Because of the color barrier, Barry Bonds could not have gotten Lou Gehrig's Disease.

and most of these the very same people screaming at joe morgan
for refusing to read billy beane's book

I thought that joke had been beaten to death, then into a deep grave, but somehow it still makes me smirk.

This article could not be more wrong. Because of the color barrier, Barry Bonds could not have gotten Lou Gehrig's Disease.

World, I'm asking you now to suppress the desire to make a sickle cell comment. Please refrain. Please.

Well, I'm no good at math, but I can do premises. And as I see it, his argument is built on two premises, one of which is false (Bonds admitted taking steroids) and one of which is inconclusive (steroid use has a practically significant effect on baseball performance).

I believe the first premise is true. Bonds' lawyer admitted it, only he says he didnt know they were steroids. But Bonds can be concluded to have taken steroids or PEDs if his attorney admits it, in my mind. His attorney was quoted as saying this:"He took these substances not out of willful ignorance but out of blind faith in his best friend," Rains told a news conference on the steps of a courthouse in Oakland."--This was after the SF Chronicle wrote their story.

As far as the second premise: that is the point of the article. The Sklansky use of Bayes' Theorem, if legit, provdies some evidence that the second premise is true. Of course we don't have scientific proof in the form of controlled studies yet, only this speculative proof. My opinion, not fact, is that it is true and will be proven true.

No Bayesian would use the word "prove" in this context, so he's off to a bad start right there. All statistics are about probabilistic statements, Bayesians add conditional probability, to an extent question whether there is such a thing as objective proof, and are even more reliant on large sample sizes which the single data point of Barry Bonds is not.

Quite a leap here, from "Sklansky ... uses Bayes' Theorem to opine that if two unlikely events that are apparently unrelated occur at the same time, they probably are related even if we don't know it yet" to "No matter what is proven in the coming years, this use of Bayes' Theorem shows that Bonds' post age 35 performance was at least in part, if not largely, the result of his PED use."

I'm not sure I see how the author is actually "applying" the Theorem in a mathemetical sense.

World, I'm asking you now to suppress the desire to make a sickle cell comment. Please refrain. Please

What sick old soul would make such an anemic joke?

10 - mr. general

"these substances" did NOT refer specifically to the steroid substances that the prosecutors called "cream" and "clear." "these substances" are ALL of the kabilloion things that bonds took.

i read that statement too

if you want to believe this is an admission that bonds used those specific 2 substances, be my guest. but that is assuming, not proof.

and while you are at it, if you are going to state that it is a FACT that using steroids improves hitting performance please be kind enough to demonstrate it with, say, manny alexander, alex sanchez and matt lawton.

Bonds said he used a clear substance and a cream substance. He never said he used "The Cream" or "The Clear". He said he used them because his friend gave them to him. He never said he used steroids because his friend gave them to him, he in fact said he didn't know what they were -- he said he took the substances that he took because his friend gave them to him.

Bonds never said they were steroids. Anderson never said they were steroids! Anderson has in fact continually denied ever giving Bonds steroids.

Are they lying? Probably. But Bonds has never admitted to using steroids, knowingly or unknowingly. He admitted to using something, but he did not know and does not know exactly what it was.

Fantasy Baseball General:

I believe the first premise is true. Bonds' lawyer admitted it, only he says he didnt know they were steroids. But Bonds can be concluded to have taken steroids or PEDs if his attorney admits it, in my mind. His attorney was quoted as saying this: "He took these substances not out of willful ignorance but out of blind faith in his best friend," Rains told a news conference on the steps of a courthouse in Oakland.

That's great. Now, when you get the quote in which Bonds's attorney admits he took steroids, please post it. Because that ain't it.

Larry:

But Bonds has never admitted to using steroids, knowingly or unknowingly. He admitted to using something, but he did not know and does not know exactly what it was.

Actually, Bonds said he does know: he said it was flaxseed oil and lotion.

Quoting now from Game of Shadows:

"At the end of 2002, 2003 season, when I was going through my dad died of cancer... I was fatigued, just needed recovery you know, and this guy says, 'Try this cream, try this cream,' he said. And Greg came to the ballpark and said, you know, 'This will help you recover.' And he rubbed some cream on my arm... Gave me some flaxseed oil, man. It's like, 'Whatever, dude.'

"And I was at the ballpark, whatever. I don't care. What's lotion going to do to me? How many times have I heard that 'This is going to rub into you and work'? Let him be happy, we're friends, you know?"

Bonds was shown a vial the government believed had contained The Clear. Bonds insisted it was flaxseed oil. He said he had ingested the substance by placing a couple of drops under his tongue -- the prescribed method for taking the BALCO steroid but hardly the common way to down flaxseed oil, a product sold at health-food stores.

"I never asked Greg. When he said it was flaxseed oil, I just said, 'Whatever.' It was in the ballpark... in front of everybody. I mean, all the reporters, my teammates. I mean, they all saw it. I didn't hide it. I didn't hide it.. You know, trainers come up to me and say, 'Hey Barry, try this.'"

Bayesians add conditional probability, to an extent question whether there is such a thing as objective proof,

It's the part that is absolutely key. A real Bayesian would see that the extremity of opinion regarding Bonds' innocence is an indication that one (or both) of the following is true:

a) There is an insufficient amount evidence to conclude one way or the other for a wide class of prior beliefs

b) People have irrationally strong prior beliefs that are affecting their interpretation of the evidence

Hmmm...

You forgot:

c) We are all computer simulations.

Are they lying? Probably. But Bonds has never admitted to using steroids, knowingly or unknowingly. He admitted to using something, but he did not know and does not know exactly what it was.

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

Bonds was shown a vial the government believed had contained The Clear. Bonds insisted it was flaxseed oil. He said he had ingested the substance by placing a couple of drops under his tongue --the prescribed method for taking the BALCO steroid but hardly the common way to down flaxseed oil, a product sold at health-food stores.

"I never asked Greg. When he said it was flaxseed oil, I just said, 'Whatever.' It was in the ballpark... in front of everybody. I mean, all the reporters, my teammates. I mean, they all saw it. I didn't hide it. I didn't hide it.. You know, trainers come up to me and say, 'Hey Barry, try this.'"

When lawyers moonlight as ghostwriters:

You say I just shot John Lennon? Christ, I thought that that was that Russian Lenin!

Me rob that bank? That couldn't be me on that video, must be my twin brother!

Me f*ck a dead woman? Now how in the hell was I to know that she was dead?

Andy, do you have a point?

Andy's point is that Bonds, Anderson and Rains are lying. Larry's point is the lies are more plausible and better constructed than Andy gives them credit for. This has nothing to do with how much steroids help hitters, but it has a helluva lot to do with why nobody's going to jail for perjury.

Andy's point is that Bonds, Anderson and Rains are lying. Larry's point is the lies are more plausible and better constructed than Andy gives them credit for. This has nothing to do with how much steroids help hitters, but it has a helluva lot to do with why nobody's going to jail for perjury.

I'll let Larry speak to Larry's point, but Andy's point is that only a fanboy with a mancrush on Bonds would swallow his convoluted explanations about flaxseed oil (ingested under the tongue, no less!), regardless of how successful they might prove to be in keeping him out of jail. The "plausibile" and "better constructed" parts serve only that narrow goal.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, if your understandable aim is merely to keep your client away from a perjury charge. And perhaps as Costanza says, it's not a lie if you believe it yourself. Just don't insult our intelligence by pretending that that Bonds's "explanation" has any basis in reality outside of a courtroom or a Seinfeld set.

I'll let Larry speak to Larry's point, but Andy's point is that only a fanboy with a mancrush on Bonds would swallow his convoluted explanations about flaxseed oil (ingested under the tongue, no less!), regardless of how successful they might prove to be in keeping him out of jail. The "plausibile" and "better constructed" parts serve only that narrow goal.

"Greg told me it was flaxseed oil" doesn't really sound "convoluted" to me. I think you've used the wrong word here.

"Greg told me it was flaxseed oil" doesn't really sound "convoluted" to me. I think you've used the wrong word here

'Mendacious,' perhaps? :)

I'll let Larry speak to Larry's point, but Andy's point is that only a fanboy with a mancrush on Bonds would swallow his convoluted explanations about flaxseed oil (ingested under the tongue, no less!), regardless of how successful they might prove to be in keeping him out of jail.

Well, Ray's point had nothing to do with whether Bonds (or his attorney) was lying. Ray's point was that neither Bonds nor his attorney admitted that Bonds took steroids, either knowingly or unknowingly.

All you've done is, in effect, profess your moral superiority to lawyers, which is not particularly moving or mature, let alone relevant.

"Greg told me it was flaxseed oil" doesn't really sound "convoluted" to me. I think you've used the wrong word here.

Except that I was addressing this:

Bonds was shown a vial the government believed had contained The Clear. Bonds insisted it was flaxseed oil. He said he had ingested the substance by placing a couple of drops under his tongue

which seems to fit the following definition, at least the "intricate" and "devious" parts:

convoluted - highly complex or intricate and occasionally devious

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

Well, Ray's point had nothing to do with whether Bonds (or his attorney) was lying. Ray's point was that neither Bonds nor his attorney admitted that Bonds took steroids, either knowingly or unknowingly.

And bravo for Ray.

All you've done is, in effect, profess your moral superiority to lawyers, which is not particularly moving or mature, let alone relevant.

What does morality have to do with this? I don't particularly blame Bonds for lying in order to try to save his reputation, whatever may be left of it.

But if you are seriously trying to maintain that what Bonds said about "flaxseed oil...under his tongue" isn't a backhanded way of admitting that he juiced, then all you're doing is making the obvious distinction between the standards of evidence that prevail in a courtroom and the standards that prevail in the realm of common sense.

Now if you're a lawyer like Dave, I can understand your programmed compulsion to maintain this, but if you're not (and I have no idea what you do for a living), then you're wandering into serious Flat Earth Society territory.

No, still doesn't sound "convoluted" to me. Nothing complex or intricate about that explanation. Very straightforward. You don't believe it, obviously, but "convoluted" isn't the right word for "I don't believe it."

(Incidentally, I don't understand "shown a vial the government believed had contained The Clear." That the government "believed" contained it? Is this a religious thing? Either it did or it didn't; how is it a matter of "belief"? Does the statement refer to a type of vial that the government believed contained the clear? Was it some proprietary Balco vial? Did Balco make glassware as well as steroids?)

But if you are seriously trying to maintain that what Bonds said about "flaxseed oil...under his tongue" isn't a backhanded way of admitting that he juiced, then all you're doing is making the obvious distinction between the standards of evidence that prevail in a courtroom and the standards that prevail in the realm of common sense.

Now if you're a lawyer like Dave, I can understand your programmed compulsion to maintain this, but if you're not (and I have no idea what you do for a living), then you're wandering into serious Flat Earth Society territory.

"It was flaxseed oil" is not an admission that it was a steroid, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

All you've done is, in effect, profess your moral superiority to lawyers, which is not particularly moving or mature, let alone relevant.

Moving? No. Mature? Who cares. Relevant? Absolutely. Moral superiority to lawyers is admittedly a very low standard, but it's almost always a relevant one.

No, still doesn't sound "convoluted" to me. Nothing complex or intricate about that explanation. Very straightforward. You don't believe it, obviously, but "convoluted" isn't the right word for "I don't believe it."

I won't really argue with that, David, although Bonds's method of ingesting that "flaxseed oil" does seem rather atypically "complex" to me. But the more interesting question is whether or not you "believe it" yourself. Sounds to me more like Kramer's explanation of how Keith Hernandez's spit wound up on his face, grassy knoll and all.

"It was flaxseed oil" is not an admission that it was a steroid, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

And no matter how many times you want to ignore this minor point, you don't usually ingest "flaxseed oil" by placing it under your tongue. But I concede that the view from the edge of the earth might be different.

And no matter how many times you want to ignore this minor point, you don't usually ingest "flaxseed oil" by placing it under your tongue.

Well, maybe it turns out that if you do place it under your tongue it works really, really well.