Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

SI: Bonds exposed in book

Beginning in 1998 with injections in his buttocks of Winstrol, a powerful steroid, Barry Bonds took a wide array of performance-enhancing drugs over at least five seasons in a massive doping regimen that grew more sophisticated as the years went on, according to Game of Shadows, a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters at the forefront of reporting on the BALCO steroid distribution scandal.

(An excerpt of Game of Shadows that details Bonds’ steroid use appears exclusively in the March 13 issue of Sports Illustrated, which is available on newsstands beginning on Wednesday. The book’s publication date is March 27.)

Thanks to Jimmy P.

VG Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:31 PM | 862 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: giants

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. Mark S. is bored Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#1887332)
Whatever happened to the IRS audit/investigation of Bonds for tax evasion? It was big news for a few weeks while his ex-mistress was hawking her book, but I haven't heard anything since then
   102. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#1887333)
There is no clinical or preclinical evidence whatsoever to support the contention that exogenous hGH will improve eyesight in normal individuals.

Considering that it would probably be illegal to run such a study, I'm not surprised.
   103. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#1887336)
Well, let's be honest, Cheney taking on Iran with a shotgun is just silly.

What about Ditka then?
   104. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#1887337)
There is no cross-examination in a grand jury proceeding.
   105. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#1887340)
LAWofBH, thanks for linking the documents and summarizing. I don't see how that "documentary evidence" is support for the assertion in the "lead-in" quote to this thread that Bonds used before the period leading up to the 2003 season. It may be in the book, but it ain't apparent to me yet.
   106. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#1887341)
I should clarify that my summary in post 99 on the last page refers to statement made to federal agents.

As for Grand Jury statements:

1. Kimberly Bell stated that Bonds referred to his steroid use in 2000, and blamed his 1999 elbow injury on his usage. (If I'm not missing something, this is the one reference to Barry's having begun using after the 1998 season, at least so far as this one article on the SI website is concerned.)

2. Tim Montgomery stated that during a visit to BALCO in 2000 or 2001, Victor Conte told him that BALCO was providing Bonds with Winstrol.

3. In 2003, five baseball players admitted that Greg Anderson had provided them with steroids, and that they had met Anderson through Bonds. The writers infer this to mean that Anderson was providing these players with substances he was also providing Bonds.

The documentary evidence appears mostly to comprise the calendars and materials seized in Anderson's home.

IMO, it is this documentary evidence that carries the most weight.
   107. Dr Love Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#1887342)
What about Ditka then?

Ditka vs Iran? Ditka all the way.

Cheney w/shotgun vs Ditka? I don't know.
   108. Robert S. Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:27 PM (#1887345)
Dear Sports Reporters,

Don't stop now. Don't stop at Barry. Don't stop at the players. Don't forget to include yourselves.

Love,

Robert
   109. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#1887356)
From the SI link I posted above, the documents are:
At Anderson's apartment, investigators found steroids, growth hormone and $60,000 in cash, along with a folder that contained doping calendars and other documents detailing Bonds's use of steroids. Prosecutors questioned Bonds about the documents during his appearance before the grand jury. Some document entries reflect payments for drugs for Bonds: $1,500 for two boxes of growth hormone; $450 for a bottle of Depotestosterone; $100 for 100 Clomiphene pills; $200 for the Cream and the Clear. Other entries reflect Bonds's drug cycle: For February 2002, a calendar showed alternating days of the Cream, the Clear and growth hormone followed by "Clow," or Clomid.

A document labeled "BLB 2003" listed cities where the Giants played away games in 2003, with notations for the use of growth hormone, the Clear, the Cream and insulin on specific days. Other documents associated with Bonds referred to the use of trenbolone and "beans," the Mexican steroid.
At Anderson's apartment, and in a search of BALCO's trash, the agents also found evidence of Bonds's blood being sent to drug labs for steroid testing.
All emphasis above is mine. As I mentioned, I find this far more compelling than anything Conte said to a prospective client like Tim Montgomery.
   110. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:36 PM (#1887367)
Wow, somebody did a hell of a job on framing Barry. Eventually the truth will come out and Mr. Bonds will be vindicated.

Best Regards

John
   111. rory_b_bellows Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:39 PM (#1887372)
At the end of the SI.com article there was is a poll on whether Bonds' HR record should stand. 70% of the respondents (30000 as of this moment) think that they should be wiped out will the remainder are evenly split on whether or not to put an asterisk next to it. This is a huge mess that baseball really has no chance of cleaning up. I'm not sure how they can wipe out the record as there wasn't anything in the rules about steroid use. Personally I've always been sort of ambivalent about steroid use. I always thought that Bonds' HR explosion was more due to his strikezone being the size of a shoebox -- with his plate discipline he was going to hammer any "strike."
   112. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#1887378)
Was there ever really a "pro-steroid crowd?"


Yep. You can follow Retardo's links on his Wiki page to see them in all their glory. Or you can try to rewrite history by saying over and over again how you would like the events to have transpired.

Doesn't matter too much to me either way.

Because either way, you still have those loonier factions around that will proclaim:

"Steroids don't enhance performance"

and other factions that will proclaim:

"'Roid em up and test the survivors."

And that will provide entertainment. Those that want to proclaim people are racist have long since slunk away. We don't even have many of the "we were right at the time" crowd showing their faces.

But I like this new tactic of people getting indignant b/c they totally missed the boat on everything related to this topic.

It's just when Chrissy and Field are around, we actually deal with issues rather than historical revision.
   113. Kirby Kyle Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:44 PM (#1887380)
Considering that it would probably be illegal to run such a study, I'm not surprised.

For a clinical study, you could rely on data from known users. It's a difficult study to control, which is why much of the literature on illegal PEDs is so weak, but it can be done.

Preclinical studies refer to animal models. Most of what is known about the effects of hGH is from animal studies. My comments on those studies are in post 15 in this thread.
   114. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#1887385)
70% of the respondents (30000 as of this moment) think that they should be wiped out will the remainder are evenly split on whether or not to put an asterisk next to it.

Wow! Anybody want to revisit what the public or sports fans think about illegal drug use.

Hurry, hurry, hurry all you self-proclaimed "agnostics". Here is your chance to juice some numbers to support a conclusion.
   115. Maury Brown Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#1887386)
Right when the situation with the Nationals looks to get cleared up, Barry and the clear come back up.

Bud's in a no-win situation on this. I say, call the game a tie.
   116. ronh Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#1887387)
This guy and his "doctor" think that HGH helps make you see better.

Where the IRS when we need them? They should have Bonds in jail for tax evasion by now. Of course we all know how slow they are.
   117. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#1887388)
Well I'm still not convinced until I hear a confession not given under duress by Bonds.

Best Regards

John
   118. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#1887391)
"'Roid em up and test the survivors."


Speaking of this little minority of one. I'd be interested in the faction's new press release. From what I recall, since Barry's use is now fully documented and he has survived what appears to be one of the most aggresive doping regimes post-Stassi, I think their polity is that he must now donate himself to science to be tested like a lab rat.

I wonder if the winds are blowing differently in the Bay after this book announcement.
   119. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#1887392)
Preclinical studies refer to animal models. Most of what is known about the effects of hGH is from animal studies.

And the eyes of most animals are constructed very differently than those of humans.

I know what you're saying, Kirby, that there's not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, but that's not the same as saying that the hypothesis isn't true.
   120. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#1887393)
I'm confident that when people speak about say, the single season HR record, they'll refer to Maris (which will please his son) as having the "clean" record.
   121. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#1887394)
There is no cross-examination in a grand jury proceeding.

For that matter, there is no cross-examination of an affidavit either. I do think that the Anderson documents are more damning, though.
   122. ronh Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#1887395)
Thread title:

Bonds exposed in book

When did Barry pose for Playgirl?
   123. David Wrightwing obstructionist Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:53 PM (#1887399)
Bud's in a no-win situation on this

thats the only good thing about this, that Bud gets to deal with the fallout
   124. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:53 PM (#1887400)
I'm confident that when people speak about say, the single season HR record, they'll refer to Maris (which will please his son) as having the "clean" record.

Good to see you JC. Have you heard anything from Retardo or Kevin?
   125. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1887401)
Backlasher, it's an internet poll. It has the validity of spring training stats.
   126. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#1887403)
BTW: Bonds is SOOO ######. If this stuff is true, or perhaps more relevant, if people believe this stuff is true, how can he get voted in to the Hall?
   127. Cris E Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#1887406)
I could actually see Bud invoking BIOB and suspending him until an investigation could be completed (and then maybe not closing the investigation for a year or so.) The best thing he could do to give the impression of "preserving the integrity of the records" or whatever would be freeze Barry in his tracks, leaving Ruth and Aaron in place. It would also be the most painful for Bonds and provide a serious financial slap at team management who allowed this go on yadda yadda yadda. The only trick would be to get it past the players assn. They'd defend, of course, and probably win.

In the end pressure from the league or the media might be enough hassle to get him to retire. It sounds awful when written like that, but from a PR standpoint MLB might find it easier to cut bait on Barry rather than work through it within the process. It'd be a typically weaselly Selig response, but I find it quite plausible.
   128. rory_b_bellows Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#1887409)
Backlasher says Wow! Anybody want to revisit what the public or sports fans think about illegal drug use.

How is using steroids illegal? It's not against the rules. Now you can say it's against the law but I think so is throwing at a batter. Whether or not it is against the "outside" laws isn't relevant.
   129. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#1887410)
Backlasher, it's an internet poll. It has the validity of spring training stats.

LOL. You're right Mahnken we should know people don't care about doping b/c of the alternative evidence from....well there is.... You might have to help me out here Lare.

And that stuff on Bonds, its all hearsay. No, no wait...its all just Nowitski. Well, its all just .... Might need you to pick that one up too.

ROFLMAO.
   130. Sean McNally Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#1887411)
Yep. You can follow Retardo's links on his Wiki page to see them in all their glory. Or you can try to rewrite history by saying over and over again how you would like the events to have transpired.

Doesn't matter too much to me either way.

Because either way, you still have those loonier factions around that will proclaim:

"Steroids don't enhance performance"

and other factions that will proclaim:

"'Roid em up and test the survivors."

And that will provide entertainment. Those that want to proclaim people are racist have long since slunk away. We don't even have many of the "we were right at the time" crowd showing their faces.

But I like this new tactic of people getting indignant b/c they totally missed the boat on everything related to this topic.

It's just when Chrissy and Field are around, we actually deal with issues rather than historical revision.


Fair enough.

I guess if I were categorized, it'd by these definitions, I'd be a pro-steroid guy... but truth be told, I really just didn't care that much.

Not to say I think steroids are a good thing, its just that the issue didn't interest me.
   131. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#1887412)
Backlasher, it's an internet poll. It has the validity of spring training stats.


This is so misplaced. Yeah, sure, the poll is "unofficial" in the sense you wouldn't use its results to elect a president, but it's a fairly reliable source of information about what SI.com readers think. And however you want to dismiss it, it's evidence we're right and you were wrong, Larry. It seems people will hold this against him.

BL: I've heard from Kevin. He's around. RETARDO and I exchanged emails awhile ago. He's back, though infrequently. I expect he'll weigh in on this. But the "new" primer just doesn't capture anyone's attention like the old one used to.
   132. Guapo Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#1887416)
cnn.com's poll of the day:

Should women be allowed to be homecoming kings and men be allowed to be homecoming queens?

Yes-22%-26751 votes

No-78%-94933 votes
   133. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#1887417)
LOL. You're right Mahnken we should know people don't care about doping b/c of the alternative evidence from....well there is.... You might have to help me out here Lare.

And that stuff on Bonds, its all hearsay. No, no wait...its all just Nowitski. Well, its all just .... Might need you to pick that one up too.

ROFLMAO.


What the hell is wrong with you? WHERE THE #### DID I SAY ANY OF THAT ####?!?!

I said an internet poll doesn't mean anything. That's what I said. That's all I said. Period. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS?
   134. Smelly is a Firework Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#1887418)
Bonds was a first ballot Hall of Famer before 1998. If this keeps him out of the hall, its a shame. If bonds was drug free, he was in the argument for best player of all time, as opposed to "merely" being the best player of his generation.
   135. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:04 PM (#1887423)
How is using steroids illegal? It's not against the rules. Now you can say it's against the law but I think so is throwing at a batter. Whether or not it is against the "outside" laws isn't relevant.


Go read the old threads linked from Retardo's Wiki. There you can find answers to such questions, and:

(1) What the relevant rules of baseball were at all relevant times.
(2) What the rules of the United States of America and its territories were at all relevant times.
(3) How the UPC and CBA deal with this issue.

and other interesting topics such as:

(1) Why steroids aren't LASIK.
(2) What's the difference between spitballs and illegal drugs.
(3) Why steroids are harmful substances.
(4) And how Lee Lacy and John Lowenstein don't prove that Bonds was not on the juice.

But this isn't the new semester, and The Jim isn't doling out tenure. Forgive me if I don't want to have another Groundhog Day.
   136. Guapo Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:05 PM (#1887424)
another cnn.com poll:

What is your favorite Don Knotts work?

"Three's Company"-19%-21348 votes

"The Andy Griffith Show"-66%-74860 votes

"The Ghost and Mr. Chicken"-6%-6902 votes

"The Incredible Mr. Limpet"-10%-10911 votes

All of you "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" apologists, bow down in shame.
   137. jglassman Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:05 PM (#1887425)
It's their (the writers and members) Hall of Fame, they can do what they wish with it.
   138. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:06 PM (#1887430)
For easy comparison

Bonds before 1998:

.288/.411/.551, 374 HRs (6069 ABs)

after '98

.323/.506/.730, 334 HRs (3071 ABs)
   139. Jack Keefe Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#1887434)
Well Al it all ways seems this time of year they are up set about Beary Bonds and his stereos now the truth can be told in a book thay have pictures of Bonds taking seven PEZ which are as follows 1 Winstrol 2 Lindsey Doyle 3 Atomic Balm 4 Soda Phed 5 Geritol 6 Camay with one quarter Cleansing Cream and 7 Chocolate Lucky Charms. With all this stuff in his vains it is a wonder his head stayed as small as it did well that tears it Al I am not taking any thing that is not Organic and I will not even brush my teeth for the rest of Spring Traneing you do not know what they put in the toothpaste Al the other day I bought Coal Gate Extra Whitening Tartar Control Scope Minty Fresh Human Growth Hormone Stripy Gel and I had to bury it out behind the practice fields here in Twos On so that Bud Selugh would not get wind and ban me.
   140. Willie Mayspedester Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#1887435)
At least this came out before he passed the Babe.
   141. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#1887436)
But the "new" primer just doesn't capture anyone's attention like the old one used to.


Yeah, this is the first time I've gone in thread in a few weeks. I was lounging the other night and we were talking about SE Va. I thought about emailing you.

And this thing today is as slow as a ghost.

If bonds was drug free

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts oh what a party we'd have.

That's all I said.

And you were wrong.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS?

I think you mean, "Why the hell are you idiots always right?"
   142. Mister High Standards Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#1887437)
David Ortiz is a GOD!
   143. AndrewJ Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:11 PM (#1887440)
From the SF Gate.com story:

<i>Anderson apparently had easy access to drugs: The excerpt explains how he bought testosterone and growth hormone from AIDS patients who had obtained the drugs with a prescription.</i>

This will not win Barry Bonds any friends in San Francisco.
   144. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:11 PM (#1887444)
I quoted you directly, Larry, from your post #25; are you claiming you were misquoted, taken out of context? You said the internet poll has no validity, right? Presumably your point was to refute BL's idea that the poll indicates people will care (which many here denied, including I recall YOU). The poll is one piece of evidence that many people will care. BL rightly asks for some counter evidence they don't.
   145. Dr Love Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#1887449)
Backlasher, it's an internet poll. It has the validity of spring training stats.

Larry, you're smarter than this. When talking about public opinion, an internet poll--one that has 30,000+ respondants--is a pretty good measure of it.
   146. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:15 PM (#1887450)
The poll indicates (much more significantly) that only 13% of those responding think his stats should stand as is (w/o asterisk or "wiping"). That's amazing.
   147. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:15 PM (#1887451)
This might be a stupid question, but for the PED-crusaders out there (you know who you are), how do you feel about this? I ask because in the 5 seconds of talk-radio that I heard today, one of the hosts called this a "glorious" day and sounded absolutely giddy.

I can understand that the PED-crusaders would feel vindicated about this -- that much of their suspicions are coming to fruition. Still, do you feel "good" about this? Would you feel happy if it was decided by a court of law?

Personally, I feel sad -- not because I defend Bonds, but because I hate to see black marks against the game I love, let alone some of its top achievers. I'd feel just as bad if I learned that Cal Ripken kept his streak going by taking PEDs. Heck, I feel bad when I hear of Ty Cobb's misdeeds did, even if it wasn't cheating.
   148. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:16 PM (#1887452)
All of you "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" apologists, bow down in shame.

TGaMC apologists should have their children taken away from them.
   149. Traderdave Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#1887455)
<<i>i>Anderson apparently had easy access to drugs: The excerpt explains how he bought testosterone and growth hormone from AIDS patients who had obtained the drugs with a prescription.</i> </i>

AIDS p[atienst selling their drugs is an old story in SF, I doubt there will be a ripple about that tidbit. A large portion of the really high quality reefer in San Fran (Cali Green, BC Bomb, etc) is sold by AIDS patients who get it via "prescriptions" at medical mj. clinics.
   150. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#1887456)
60% of an MSNBC poll think his stats should be wiped out and, gulp!, his final 4 MVPs revoked. That's stunning.
   151. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#1887457)
In fairness to Larry Mahnken, internet polls are beyond useless as actual tools. Any self-selected sample (in this case, internet-savvy sports fans with a particular intereste in Barry Bonds and/or steroids) simply cannot be used to represent the public-at-large.

That doesn't mean that this poll might not accidently represent actual popular opinion, but this poll provides zero evidence what what "popular" opinion is on the issue.
   152. rb's team is hopeful for the new year! Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#1887459)
Bonds before 1998:

.288/.411/.551, 374 HRs (6069 ABs)

after '98

.323/.506/.730, 334 HRs (3071 ABs)


This really just tells me how old I'm getting. 98 seems like it was just yesterday, and apparently bonds has had a third of his career since then.
   153. Smelly is a Firework Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#1887460)
If bonds was drug free

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts oh what a party we'd have.


I realized how that might read after I posted it. Just to clarify, I believe Bonds used steroids and in no way meant to imply that it was an unsettled issue.

The "If Bonds was drug free" was refering to the fact that prior to his steroid use coming to light, his numbers put him in the argument for best of all time. Since his steroid use, he can only be argued for the best of his generation, IMHO.
   154. Tonight's special is maggot-infested carcass Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:19 PM (#1887462)
I'm confident that when people speak about say, the single season HR record, they'll refer to Maris (which will please his son) as having the "clean" record.

While we're taking records away, why does Maris get to keep his? He played a longer season than Ruth. That's a more obvious, easily measureable advantage than steroids, etc.
   155. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#1887463)
The poll indicates (much more significantly) that only 13% of those responding think his stats should stand as is (w/o asterisk or "wiping"). That's amazing.

I suspect that if the question were phrased differently -- asking if the records of individuals who used "supplements" should stand -- many respondents would answer similarly, even if the substances were perfectly legal, even under WADA's standards.
   156. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#1887466)
When talking about public opinion, an internet poll--one that has 30,000+ respondants--is a pretty good measure of it.

I strongly disagree.
   157. Sean McNally Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#1887469)
JC ... Larry's not taking a shot at you... I think he's taking umbrage with BL's attributing things to him that he, so far as I can tell, did not say (at least not in this thread).

I also, in this thread anyway, don't see a place where he declared he was right or wrong about anything, so may be that was directed at you.
   158. jglassman Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#1887471)
What would it mean for his stats to be wiped out? All of those homeruns happened. Should it change anybody's oppinion of their level of taintedness if MLB officially didn't recognize them?
   159. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#1887472)
And the internet poll makes perfect sense.

Ben Johnson's 9.79 in the 1988 Olympic 100 meters isn't in the Olympic or track & field records; why in the world would Barry Bonds's tainted homeruns be in the baseball records?
   160. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#1887473)
after '98

.323/.506/.730, 334 HRs (3071 ABs)

This really just tells me how old I'm getting. 98 seems like it was just yesterday, and apparently bonds has had a third of his career since then.


It does seem like yesterday, and Barry has hit more HR since then than his dad, Hank Greenberg or George Brett hit in their entire careers.
   161. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:24 PM (#1887476)
That doesn't mean that this poll might not accidently represent actual popular opinion, but this poll provides zero evidence what what "popular" opinion is on the issue.


Zero's an overstatement, but we all understand the nature of internet polls.

Personally, I feel sad -- not because I defend Bonds, but because I hate to see black marks against the game I love, let alone some of its top achievers. I'd feel just as bad if I learned that Cal Ripken kept his streak going by taking PEDs. Heck, I feel bad when I hear of Ty Cobb's misdeeds did, even if it wasn't cheating.


I don't feel sad for sure, but I don't feel "giddy" either. I can't speak for all the "crusaders", but this "love of game" to which you appeal motivated me to be anti-steroids and to condemn those who clearly had cheated. I can't see why, therefore, the truth coming out about someone who sullied a game you and I love would be saddening. Let's stand for Mike Greenwell and Don Mattingly and Roger Maris and Kirby Puckett and anyone else who did not systematically circumvent the law to cheat his peers. Discovery of criminality is part of the pursuit of justice. Bonds chose to cheat. To be great, he didn't have to (hence the tragedy). But he freely chose this behavior and I have no respect for him or for those who choose to dismiss his wilful disregard for his peers or the sport we love.

That's how I feel today.
   162. RP Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:24 PM (#1887477)
I can't believe we're arguing about the validity of an on-line poll.
   163. Sean McNally Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#1887483)
I too am skeptical of the Internet polls?

Who are they polling? Baseball fans? Dodger fans? WADA members?

I'd be more interested in the results of a controlled sample poll by Zogby or Quinnipiac or something.
   164. Dr Love Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#1887484)
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS?

I am reminded of Office Space.

Well look, i already told you, I deal with the ####### customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills, I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
   165. KDub's CellPiece (BLtDH) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:27 PM (#1887487)
WBC update- error by jeter...please continue.

BLtDH
   166. Srul Itza Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1887493)
From the "speak out" page on ESPN

In addition to the "Bonds is a sleaze" stuff, which you would expect, there is this:


"Jeff: Why is this book coming out now? Where were these two in 2001, 2002 and 2003? This is just another lame attack on Bonds. "

"Charles (Lake City, FL): I'm so tired of hearing about Barry Bonds and his alleged steriod use. Barry has been tested for years and has never shown up positive. All this is at this point is a chance for the media to try to bury a player it never liked. It's gotten to a point of being ridiculous. Just let it go!"

"Coley: I too believe that baseball is as much to blame as Bonds. The home run binge helped bring baseball back from the player strike. Everybody was too busy worrying about Maris' record to say anything about 'roids. But honestly, can anyone say they are shocked? I am a lifetime Dodger fan and I think Bonds' records should remain, no asterisk. How many of those homeruns did he hit off of pitchers that were on steroids too? I think Bud Selig and baseball are to blame for not protecting the integrity of baseball's records. "


"Mark (Primghar, Iowa): It's amazing that people are coming out of the woodwork to bury Barry. He's one of the best players to ever play the game, even before is alleged doping which now supposedly started in '98. Can't we just have a normal opening day and season without all of this garbage."

"Corey McArthur (NYC): I think I speak for most fans when I say the following in reaction to the Bonds/steroids issue: I don't care!! Enough already. The fact is that steroids were not banned by the MLB at the time. If any of us were in the same position we probably would have made the same choice. Steroids are now banned and therefore anyone caught cheating should be held up to public ridicule, and they have earned it. Can't we let the past go and move on?"

"Raphael (San Francisco): People do not understad that he is one of the best players to ever play the game and they do not like him because he is black and he could care less about anyone but himself. Live with it...dont be mad because your not him...just let him play baseball and leave him alone "

Etc., etc.

The comments are running far more strongly in the pro-Barry camp or the I don't care camp, than the raw numbers would suggest. Perhaps ESPN is deliberately skewing it that way, to create. Or perhaps, where Barry is concerned, the propensity to support/defend/deny is directly proportional to the willingness to make an anonymous comment on the internet.
   167. _ Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1887494)
When talking about public opinion, an internet poll--one that has 30,000+ respondants--is a pretty good measure of it.

No it's not, for the simple reason that the people who will tend to respond to this are the ones who feel most strongly about it. In this case, the anti-Bonds people. They will also tend to respond again and again; I don't think they track the voters by IP address. Unless you really believe that the 2 most popular books of the 20th century were Atlas Shrugged and Battlefield Earth.
   168. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1887495)
According to an msnbc.com poll, 86% believe that online polls are worthless.
   169. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#1887496)
This is so misplaced. Yeah, sure, the poll is "unofficial" in the sense you wouldn't use its results to elect a president, but it's a fairly reliable source of information about what SI.com readers think. And however you want to dismiss it, it's evidence we're right and you were wrong, Larry. It seems people will hold this against him.

From the poll itself:

This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general nor the public as a whole.

People who want the records wiped out are more likely to vote than people who don't want the records wiped out, for the reason that they tend to be more fervent about their opinion than those who feel the record should stand.

The opinion of those of us on this side is that we don't really care about steroids that much. We're not really worked up about whether Player X is using or not, though we'd prefer if he didn't. We feel that the majority of fans feel this way.

Those fans are less likely to have voted than those who are strongly against players who use steroids. They're less likely to have clicked through to the second page of the article, where the poll is -- most people, in general, read the first part of an article to get the basic information, then stop reading -- and they're less likely to have even read the article.

It doesn't mean that everyone's okay with the record -- the percentage of people who are okay with it could even be lower than the number the poll indicates. It just means that the poll isn't evidence of anything.
   170. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#1887498)
Are actual writers who have reputations and jobs based on what they write. This doesn't automatically give them massive amounts of credibility, but they've got a lot more at stake than Barry Bonds' mistress, who has nothing at stake.
If reporters' reputations and jobs were based on what they wrote, the world would be a far better place.

In any case, I wasn't saying they were wrong; I was just amused by the juxtaposition of, "You should believe this book. It has more credibility than that other woman, because she was writing a book."


Improved eyesight is a known effect of taking Human Growth Hormone.
Is "known effect" shorthand for "I made it up"? (Yeah, I know some people make the claim. You can google it and find a million websites where people say that. Is it established by anything reliable anywhere?)
   171. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#1887499)
it's a fairly reliable source of information about what SI.com readers think.

No, it's a source of information about what people who read that article and care enough to vote think immediately after reading that article (or while reading it).
   172. Dr Love Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:31 PM (#1887500)
I strongly disagree.

How else are we going to measure public opinion?
   173. davementia Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:31 PM (#1887503)
Does Bonds remind anyone else of Richard Nixon?
...
does that make felipe alou henry kissinger?


If this results in another Ben Stein somewhere down the road, I'm all for it.
   174. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#1887504)
What would it mean for his stats to be wiped out? All of those homeruns happened. Should it change anybody's oppinion of their level of taintedness if MLB officially didn't recognize them?

It would mean the same thing as the U of Michigan basketball team taking down all their banners from the early 1990s and eliminating the accomplishments from media guides and other public historical records because they were won with ineligible players; the same thing as Ben Johnson's world record being taken off the books; the same thing as would happen in a Grand Prix or Indy race if the engine was found to be illegal, etc ....

The fact that Bonds had hit a ball 450 feet or more once before 1998 and twenty-five-odd times demonstrates the inescapably close relationship between his records and Ben Johnson or the Grand Prix engine.
   175. Dr Love Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#1887505)
I strongly disagree.

How else are we going to measure public opinion? Call people yourself? Go by what newspapers and news stations think should be news? Just guess? It's not the best indicator, but when 40K people are responding, it's got some legs.
   176. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:34 PM (#1887506)
What would it mean for his stats to be wiped out? All of those homeruns happened. Should it change anybody's oppinion of their level of taintedness if MLB officially didn't recognize them?

It would mean the same thing as the U of Michigan basketball team taking down all their banners from the early 1990s and eliminating the accomplishments from media guides and other public historical records because they were won with ineligible players; the same thing as Ben Johnson's world record being taken off the books; the same thing as would happen in a Grand Prix or Indy race if the engine was found to be illegal, etc ....

The fact that Bonds had hit a ball 450 feet or more once before 1998 and twenty-five-odd times after demonstrates the inescapably close relationship between his records and Ben Johnson or the Grand Prix engine.
   177. rb's team is hopeful for the new year! Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#1887508)
60% of an MSNBC poll think his stats should be wiped out and, gulp!, his final 4 MVPs revoked. That's stunning.

I wonder if pujols ever feels a little robbed, assuming he's not using too.
   178. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#1887511)
How else are we going to measure public opinion?

With an actual scientific poll of a representative sample of the "public" whose opinion we are trying to gauge. Any poll where the participants can elect to participate (as opposed to phone polls, where prospective participants can decline to participate and are replaced by someone similar) does not qualify. Any poll where people can vote more than once does not qualify. Any poll that only picks from a population of relatively affluent citizens with technological acumen does not qualify.
   179. RP Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:36 PM (#1887514)
How else are we going to measure public opinion? Call people yourself? Go by what newspapers and news stations think should be news? Just guess? It's not the best indicator, but when 40K people are responding, it's got some legs.

Commissioning a poll by a reputable polling organization?
   180. Srul Itza Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:36 PM (#1887515)
And this thing today is as slow as a ghost.

I thought I was fairly well informed on idiomatic expressions, but I have to say, this is a new one to me. I ran it on google, and got nothing. Is this original to you BL? Derivation?
   181. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#1887518)
This might be a stupid question, but for the PED-crusaders out there (you know who you are), how do you feel about this?

I felt like it was time to check out Primer and read some better comedic material than John Stewart could develop in a month of Daily Shows.

I was vindicated a long, long time ago.

But I can't write this stuff that occurs out here in my largest moment of creativity. And the tangents are unbelievable.

In fact, I really like the fact that the group who was so wrong about everything on this issue feels empowered to lecture about how one should draw conclusions. And I love how when the conclusions they have been reiterating for over three years have drifted into nothingness, they want too misdirect with "validity of internet polls" and "the statement was x"

It never changes around here and it never will. All that has happened is that The Jim has managed to dilute the conversation with too many blogs and drive away some of his most entertaining or knowledgeable contributors with poor performance and a layout so cavernous that a minotaur couldn't navigate it.

But this is great. Its not on cable; it doesn't happen at my job. It is first class entertainment.

Pass the popcorn Maury.
   182. JC in DC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:38 PM (#1887521)
This is LOL funny. As I said, we all know the use of internet polls is limited, but Larry et al have claimed for some time people won't care about this. They have no evidence for this assertion, and usually rely on the attendance is great non sequitor argument. The poll to which BL refers merely indicates that there remains no evidence people won't care and it may even show that people do.

I love that Larry (and some other poster) assume w/o argument that "people who want records wiped out" are more likely to vote. This is laughable. What an assertion! And another guy assumes you get to vote over and over (I don't think that's true). Let's take it for what it is: evidence that some people really care, to the point even of supporting the "Andy Doctrine," and certainly NO EVIDENCE for the position Larry advocates.
   183. JPWF13 Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:40 PM (#1887524)
Chambers repeated the charge on Meet the Press, Hiss sued, and that, my friends, was the beginning of the end for Alger Hiss.

But Alger Hiss had numerous supporters who devioutly proclaimed his innocence at every turn. Then years later, the CIA released the Venona Transcripts (The CIA had decrypted Soviet Communications way back in the 40s and 50s- but had never publicaly released that info.)- which pretty much proved that Hiss was a spy
and still his supporters refused to believe

then a KGB general or two admitted that Hiss had spied for them- but still his supporters refused to believe

then when the KGB archives were briefly opened in the early 90s, independent researchers found proof of Hiss' guilt-

but still his supporters refused to believe.

In the light of the way people's belief systems operate there's a pretty good chance that Bonds' supporters will simply roll their eyes at the mounds (truckloads? metric tons?) of hearsay and circumstantial evidence agaisnt Bionds and simply say no he didn't.
   184. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:40 PM (#1887525)
Thanks, JC.

I can't speak for all the "crusaders", but this "love of game" to which you appeal motivated me to be anti-steroids and to condemn those who clearly had cheated. I can't see why, therefore, the truth coming out about someone who sullied a game you and I love would be saddening.

It's sad for me because I don't want to have to condemn anyone. I would have liked to go on thinking that my heroes (whomever they are) are competing honestly. Yes, I can understand the outrage at the people who have tarnished the sport, whether they be Barry Bonds or Pete Rose, but mainly I'm sad that the sport is tarnished in the first place.


Let's stand for Mike Greenwell and Don Mattingly and Roger Maris and Kirby Puckett and anyone else who did not systematically circumvent the law to cheat his peers.

Do we know this? What about the amphetamine issue?
   185. _ Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#1887526)
"Sir, what you have there is what we refer to as a focused, non-terminal repeating phantasm, or a Class Five full roaming vapor. Real nasty one, too!"
   186. Dr Love Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:42 PM (#1887527)
With an actual scientific poll of a representative sample of the "public" whose opinion we are trying to gauge.

Of course, and I never said anything to the contrary. But barring that, what else can we, a bunch of people posting on the internet wondering aloud what the public thinks of this, use?

Any poll where people can vote more than once does not qualify.

I'm pretty sure the SI poll doesn't allow you vote more than once.

Any poll that only picks from a population of relatively affluent citizens with technological acumen does not qualify.


This is 2006, it's not just the rich and upper middle class that have computers these days.

Commissioning a poll by a reputable polling organization?

You want to pay for it?
   187. rb's team is hopeful for the new year! Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:42 PM (#1887528)
What would it mean for his stats to be wiped out? All of those homeruns happened. Should it change anybody's oppinion of their level of taintedness if MLB officially didn't recognize them?

Well, obviously, they'd have to go back and change the boxscores for every game since 98, especially those games in which he hit a home run against the braves.
   188. Dr Love Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1887531)
As I said, we all know the use of internet polls is limited, but Larry et al have claimed for some time people won't care about this. They have no evidence for this assertion, and usually rely on the attendance is great non sequitor argument. The poll to which BL refers merely indicates that there remains no evidence people won't care and it may even show that people do.

Thank you. That is what I was trying to say, I just didn't have the right words for it. Larry's point was that it had no use. My contention is that it does--especially when so many people are participating in it.
   189. ronh Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1887532)
I hope Barry's PR dept don't wear out their fingers defending him on ESPN's speak out page.
   190. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1887533)
Any poll where people can vote more than once does not qualify. Any poll that only picks from a population of relatively affluent citizens with technological acumen does not qualify.

This was covered within the first 15 pages (in the first chapter of course) in my intro to statistics class. I'm assuming that data from self-selecting polls not being considered valid is a pretty basic statistical ideal.
   191. BWC Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:48 PM (#1887536)
Ben Johnson's 9.79 in the 1988 Olympic 100 meters isn't in the Olympic or track & field records; why in the world would Barry Bonds's tainted homeruns be in the baseball records?
\

Because baseball statistics are zero sum; I don't much want a record book that shows the pitchers in 2001 giving up 73 more HRs than the hitters hit.

Now, as for that "record book", I'm having less and less of a problem with a publisher who wants mark some of Barry's marks separately. I enjoyed the Bonds (& McGwire & Sosa) show at the time, but less and less in retrospect. IOW, those Union guys were right.
   192. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:48 PM (#1887537)
And another guy assumes you get to vote over and over (I don't think that's true).

Of course you can vote over and over again. It's nearly impossible to design an online voting system that doesn't let you, and it would be a huge waste of resources for CNNSI to develop and deploy such technology.
   193. Backlasher Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:48 PM (#1887538)
Is this original to you BL? Derivation?


I picked up from a friend in college. IIRC, it was applied to Ken Caminiti. He was from the Philly 'burbs of Jersey. I like it better than "slow as molassas" It rolls of the tongue better and you can punctuate it much better in oration. Its kind of memetically stuck.

With an actual scientific poll of a representative sample of the "public" whose opinion we are trying to gauge.
You mean like the ones found here.

To use the Primer mode of construction, "All I'm saying is please come to the table with something that shows a majority of fans don't care.... and give peace a chance."
   194. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:49 PM (#1887540)
It never changes around here and it never will. All that has happened is that The Jim has managed to dilute the conversation with too many blogs and drive away some of his most entertaining or knowledgeable contributors with poor performance and a layout so cavernous that a minotaur couldn't navigate it.

Geez, Backlasher, forget to get your Haloperidol refilled while you were away?
   195. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:49 PM (#1887543)
As for whether internet polls are a valid gauge of public opinion, I don't understand why public opinion is relevant in the first place. Public opinion is that football (both college and pro) are the sports of choice, and maybe basketball (pro or college) as well. Public opinion in 2002 was that Iraq had WMDs . . . until none were found. Public opinion is wrong all the freaking time, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are regularly excoriated for voting according to polls.

Really, this is a big WGAS to me. ("who gives a ___")
   196. ronh Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#1887544)
I wonder how much money Pujols lost by not getting the MVP bonus money in his contract because of Bonds using?
   197. The Balls of Summer Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#1887545)
Well, I guess Jon Stewart was wrong. Investigative journalism is alive and well.

Too bad it's the people on the sports beat and not the people on the White House beat.
   198. Smelly is a Firework Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#1887547)
"But Alger Hiss had numerous supporters who devioutly proclaimed his innocence at every turn. Then years later, the CIA released the Venona Transcripts (The CIA had decrypted Soviet Communications way back in the 40s and 50s- but had never publicaly released that info.)- which pretty much proved that Hiss was a spy
and still his supporters refused to believe

then a KGB general or two admitted that Hiss had spied for them- but still his supporters refused to believe

then when the KGB archives were briefly opened in the early 90s, independent researchers found proof of Hiss' guilt-

but still his supporters refused to believe."

I looked him up on Wikipedia, and it claims the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Evidence was forged against Hiss (the typewriter). The microfilm was either blank or of stuff freely available as public record. Not that wiki is the ultimate resource, but it seems odd that it would totally disagree with everything you are saying.
   199. Sean McNally Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#1887551)
The SI poll question comes fairly close to being a push poll - leading respondents to an answer or class of answers....

In light of the latest accusations of Barry Bonds' steroid use, should his records and awards stand?
Yes
Yes, with an asterisk
No, wipe them out


Any poll of this nature also needs to have a "feel strongly" component to it.

A better way to phrase the question would be a battery of questions.

On a scale of one to five, with one being strongly disagree, two being disagree, three being no opinion, four being agree and five being strongly agree, rate the following statements.

1) Based on this article, and previous allegations, Barry Bonds used steroids.
2) Steroid use is tantamount to cheating.
3) I believe records obtained using steroids are tainted.
4) I believe, at least some, major baseball stars of the last 10 years used steroids.
5) I believe suspected users of steroids should be denied induction into the Hall of Fame.
6) I believe Barry Bonds should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Now, I think that you'd get a very high positive result with Questions 1 and 4... and mixed results with the others, particularly on numbers 3, 5 and 6.
   200. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:55 PM (#1887552)
I'm pretty sure the SI poll doesn't allow you vote more than once.

Go vote. Close Explorer and open Firefox. Go back to the site. You can vote again.

Or go vote. Clear cookies. Vote again.

You could keep voting until you got bored.
Page 2 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3185 - 11:08pm, Oct 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(7 - 11:08pm, Oct 22)
Last: Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(456 - 11:08pm, Oct 22)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(343 - 11:01pm, Oct 22)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(29 - 11:00pm, Oct 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(181 - 10:59pm, Oct 22)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(65 - 10:38pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(9 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(13 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(5 - 9:58pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(1 - 9:54pm, Oct 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(7 - 9:47pm, Oct 22)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(54 - 7:50pm, Oct 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(43 - 7:45pm, Oct 22)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(39 - 7:10pm, Oct 22)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.5768 seconds
52 querie(s) executed