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 4 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 
   301. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:12 AM (#1887829)
I think it's hilarious to see the Bonds-supporters retreating to the ledge, disputing the validity of internet polls.

For the record, I don't consider myself a "Bonds-supporter" (though I may come across that way). My point was that regardless of whether internet polls accurately measure public opinion, why should public opinion matter in the first place?

That is, except to Backlasher, a true man of the people.
   302. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:15 AM (#1887834)
If you want to berate me for not curing cancer, at least wait until we put up Oncoloblog

Please speed up the process, maybe it'll take up the time you spend posting here.

Then you can roam about and call people idiots without any cashiering from the Powers that Be.

I'm not calling people idiots, I'm calling *you* an idiot. Well, you're not really an idiot, you're more of a word that would be nannied if I said it.
   303. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#1887835)
You don't have to hit the ball 450 feet to hit a HR, y'know... That's actually a pretty frequently referenced factoid about Bonds, and I'm surprised you don't recognize it.

Ok, I missed that.
   304. I can't believe we're playing Francoeur(KevinHess) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#1887838)
I think it's hilarious to see the Bonds-supporters retreating to the ledge, disputing the validity of internet polls.


And calling us (or me) 'idiots' for being amazed at the magnitude of the results.


I think it's hilarious that people who should know better (i.e. - you two) are disputing the invalidity of internet polls.

I don't support Bonds. I think what he did (and I've come to terms with the fact that he did do it) was wrong and cheating.
   305. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:23 AM (#1887841)
Please speed up the process, maybe it'll take up the time you spend posting here.


I don't have any means to put it up Szym. And speed-up and BTF should be in some sentence over in the Jim's Lap Dances blog, not here.

I'm not calling people idiots, I'm calling *you* an idiot. Well, you're not really an idiot, you're more of a word that would be nannied if I said it.


TOS, TOS, TOS.
   306. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#1887844)
Lap Dances blog

This sounds like something I would like, but I'm too minotaurish to find it.
   307. Daryn Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#1887845)
Describing the SI poll as a push poll is wrong. It was a poll that suggested the answer. Push Polls are way dirtier than that. A push poll is perhaps the greatest/nastiest invention of modern politics: Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for Candidate X if you found out that he enjoys molesting children? Now that's a push poll.
   308. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#1887846)
I think it's hilarious that people who should know better (i.e. - you two) are disputing the invalidity of internet polls.


I do strive to entertain.

But as for 'what people think'; I've linked a poll that fit everyone of the criteria.

Nobody is arguing what "internet polls mean" except the people wanting to play gotcha. Because this stings the Bonds camp, and they can't walk into a thread without manufacturing some issue that makes them right. And then the sheer outrage that is occuring b/c we were right is even more amazing. I'm not sure what's going on with Szym today.
   309. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:29 AM (#1887848)

TOS, TOS, TOS.


The TOS only applies to people.
   310. I can't believe we're playing Francoeur(KevinHess) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#1887851)
RE: I'm not sure what's going on with Szym today.

He does seem a bit more...vigorous than usual, I think.
   311. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#1887853)
The TOS only applies to people.


I am a man of the people.

But its good to know it doesn't apply to the higher forms of life like the Prof. Hats.

He does seem a bit more...vigorous than usual, I think.

He has eaten his wheaties today. He is usually the voice of reason and mediator of all Primerdom. Those posts sound more like The Jim.
   312. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:40 AM (#1887855)
Nobody is arguing what "internet polls mean" except the people wanting to play gotcha.

Backlasher, what is my agenda in re: steroids or Bonds? Why am I rejecting the validity of internet polls? I assure you it's not due to some sinister interest.
   313. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:41 AM (#1887856)
No, but I'm fairly sure there was a rule that said that participants must run the full 26+ miles, however, and quite possibly said that they may not be aided in any way.

--I doubt it, actually. Prove it.


Ok. You can check out the rules of USA Track and Field here --

http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2005/2005USATFRules.pdf

Skip to Page 134 (Rule 243.4) --

Any competitor who has been found by the Referee and/or the Jury of Appeal to have gained an unfair advantage by intentionally shortening the route of the race ("cutting the course") shall be immediately disqualified from the competition. See also Rule 163.6


On Page 68, Rule 163.6(a) states --

No competitor, after leaving the track or course, shall be allowed to rejoin a race eitheer for the purpose of gaining a place or to assist another competitor.
   314. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:43 AM (#1887858)
I can't believe someone actually had to quote a rulebook to prove that it's against the rules of a race to run off of the course.

Talk about seeing the trees instead of the forest ...
   315. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:44 AM (#1887860)
Nobody is arguing what "internet polls mean" except the people wanting to play gotcha. Because this stings the Bonds camp, and they can't walk into a thread without manufacturing some issue that makes them right.

I dislike Bonds. It sucks that he cheated and used steroids and further validates why he is a person that is rather easy to hate. I'm in the hate Bonds camp (just to clear it up).

I believe that this statement more or less set off the debate about the internet polling.

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.

I cut the statement a bit (you can read the whole thing on the second page) but this is what alot of people took issue with. An internet poll doesn't prove anyone right or wrong because the results aren't valid.
   316. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:45 AM (#1887862)
I like Honey Bunches of Oats. Actually, I get the generic version, Oats 'n' More.
   317. _ Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:46 AM (#1887863)
Come off it, LAWoBH. If the poll had said, "70% believe Bonds is greatest human ever," we wouldn't have heard a peep out of you.
   318. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:46 AM (#1887865)
I can't believe someone actually had to quote a rulebook to prove that it's against the rules of a race to run off of the course.

Yeah, but we're talking about the same person who, despite being firmly convinced that there is no validity to a single Bonds HR since 1998 (and possibly before then), fully believes that there are no performance benefits to amphetamines whatsoever.
   319. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:50 AM (#1887869)
Actually, I get the generic version, Oats 'n' More.

I think we all know what "More" is. Cheater.
   320. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:50 AM (#1887870)
Come off it, LAWoBH. If the poll had said, "70% believe Bonds is greatest human ever," we wouldn't have heard a peep out of you.

Do you even know me? What the hell are you talking about? Do I have some extensive history of pro-Bonds positions in steroid threads that I don't know about?

I have emails dating back over four years ago where I was arguing with an ex-girlfriend over some internet poll that she was taking seriously. Internet polls are simply not valid, and had someone here tried to quote one in support of Bonds, I'd have attacked that, as well.
   321. X-Roid User Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#1887872)
I wasn't questioning that. What is it that is incorrect in the article? I for one cannot read that he gained 15 pounds on Winstrol alone and say "hey that sounds fishy". So instead of someone just saying "Not in this lifetime" I want to know if that is based on his experience using or is this something that is documented. What is the amount of muscle that can be gained on Winstrol?


Yes, i've taken Winstrol. Winstrol is a cutting drug used by bodybuilders for contest preparation. Taken by itself you would gain very little mass, but would gain strength and muscle hardness, making it ideal for sprinters. Strong mass gains are never really made while using stanozolol (depite the hysterical media claims of "powerful", it's a weak androgen since it has no 3-keto group needed for androgen binding), and the notion of someone using Winstrol alone on 3 week cycles for 100 days and adding 15 lbs of bulk is patently absurd. This from a book calling itself "The Truth".

Traditional AAS cycles run 12-16 weeks, not 3 as claimed in the book, and you most certainly go off for more than 1 week.

Now, i'm not claiming Bonds isn't juiced, because he most certainly was/is, or that he didn't run 3 weeks of Winny during a cycle, but the "facts" of his initial AAS use are nowhere near being correct. And if those "facts" are fudged, how can one even begin to believe the drivel of a vindictive female?

Seems to me the boys are looking to cash in a hot topic.

Athletes are nothing more than entertainers, and Bonds has certainly delivered in spades on that front. Steroids are merely a condition of todays environment. If the AAS advantages were known 30-40-50 years ago, you can bet your ass the same percentage of players would have taken them then as now. Mike Schmidt has already admitted as much. For Christ's sake, even just weightlifting was frowned on for ballplayers until the 80's.
   322. _ Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#1887873)
It was a joke, LAWofBH. I'm on your side.
   323. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:55 AM (#1887876)
Oh, whoops Gaedel. My sincere apologies.
   324. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:06 AM (#1887884)
Backlasher, what is my agenda in re: steroids or Bonds? Why am I rejecting the validity of internet polls? I assure you it's not due to some sinister interest.


I'm not trying to 'roid up on you Waterloo.

I just think the whole thing is misdirectional to begin with.

Someone, not me or any Union member, cites the poll. We are amazed at the way that all such Instant Polls are trending.

And Mahnken drops the "Internet Poll" thing like throwing FUD establishes one of his agnosticism points.

As I said, I've posted a Gallup poll. Nieporent is the only person even attempting to argue that "people don't care."

And of course Mahnken drops the I-bomb when he looks bad. And as I said, I don't know what got into Szym.

I have no real desire to get into a TSE debate. I don't see its purpose and its certainly not probative to anything here. Its just misdirectional. And while you or Acey or a few others could get into the debate, I doubt most of the people saying "It means nothing" are really going to add much. They read somewhere some overstatement that "Its worthless" and they would just cling to it.

As far as I can tell, there was no debate. There was Mahnken's FUD then a bunch of people explaining things.
   325. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:07 AM (#1887886)
Ok. You can check out the rules of USA Track and Field here --

http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2005/2005USATFRules.pdf

Skip to Page 134 (Rule 243.4) --

Any competitor who has been found by the Referee and/or the Jury of Appeal to have gained an unfair advantage by intentionally shortening the route of the race ("cutting the course") shall be immediately disqualified from the competition. See also Rule 163.6


On Page 68, Rule 163.6(a) states --

No competitor, after leaving the track or course, shall be allowed to rejoin a race eitheer for the purpose of gaining a place or to assist another competitor.


Prove that these rules were in effect at the time of the subway Boston marathoner.
   326. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:11 AM (#1887890)
An internet poll doesn't prove anyone right or wrong because the results aren't valid.

We are packing a lot more than the SI poll. Mahnken was throwing FUD. Its that simple.

And of course, he can throw get terse and throw a tantrum and not a word will come down for above. Heck, he can do worse than that and not a word will come from above.

But if JC or I remind him who was right, we will hear it. We will be told how we are scourge of Primer. We will be told to get over ourselves. Which is quite hard to do when we are beside ourselves with laughter.
   327. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:14 AM (#1887892)
I have no real desire to get into a TSE debate. I don't see its purpose and its certainly not probative to anything here. Its just misdirectional. And while you or Acey or a few others could get into the debate, I doubt most of the people saying "It means nothing" are really going to add much. They read somewhere some overstatement that "Its worthless" and they would just cling to it.

Not knowing what TSE means, this mostly sounds reasonable. (Though I should say that "It's worthless" isn't just something I read once, as my degree required me to learn some rudimentary facts about polling and I have at least one close friend who has polled professionally.)

It's just that I thought your statement, "Nobody is arguing what "internet polls mean" except the people wanting to play gotcha. Because this stings the Bonds camp, and they can't walk into a thread without manufacturing some issue that makes them right," was categorizing those of us who spoke up against internet polls as desperate and angry steroid/Barry advocates, which I didn't think was a fair characterization.

That might be what I get for taking part in a genre of thread I've ignored in 98% of its occurrences.
   328. Rich Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:17 AM (#1887893)
Who is this Barry Bonds you speak of?
   329. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:32 AM (#1887900)
I'm not surprised in the least, but the Giants' fan in me is still a bit disappointed that there's no longer even room for a sliver of doubt that he used. Also, I guess that I'm a bit surprised that that so convincing a case against Bonds could be made--I would have thought that he would have done a better job of covering his butt (no pun intended). I was listening to one of the authors on KNBR on the way home from work and it sounds like they've got all their i's dotted and t's crossed.
   330. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:34 AM (#1887901)
Prove that these rules were in effect at the time of the subway Boston marathoner.

You have got to be fargin kidding me. Is this satire, because it reads like satire. If not, hoe pendantic can you get?
   331. RobertMachemer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:37 AM (#1887902)
90. Backlasher: Maybe you can cover up the voice of the people by putting in an ignore feature.

...you get whiny emails and posts saying my keyboard is emitting fanboy kryptonite, and newbies stumping for an ignore feature.

I'm not sure you know how long I've been around if you're calling me a newbie, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not sure what it would have to do with what I wrote, even if it were true, unless I missed an announcement somewhere along the way that answered my question.

Anyway, if you actually read my initial post (post 56 on page 3), you'll note that I actually said nothing about whether or not I thought anyone should ignore you or anyone. I simply asked if the admins here had looked into it (in response to what Dan Szym had written). In fact, in a second post I made on the subject, (see post 69 on page 3), I suggested that it would be impractical.

Furthermore, as should also be evident from my explanation of the feature (again, see post 69 on page 3), it does not "cover up the voice of the people" for anyone who does not want the voice covered up. If person A does not want to read my posts on the projo board, s/he can avoid reading my posts; if person B wants to read my posts, his/her ability to read what I've written is not affected in any way, shape, or form, by the decision of person A to not read my posts. As I said in the previous post, it's analogous to a killfile. I suggested previously that, at least in my opinion, this differs from censorship, though perhaps you view it differently.

I also note that you've not responded to my sincere question as to what you meant by "Professor Hats Sen. McCarthy" (see post 67 on page 3). Again, what did you mean by this? Are you confusing me for someone else?
   332. RobertMachemer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:39 AM (#1887903)
90. Backlasher: Maybe you can cover up the voice of the people by putting in an ignore feature.

...you get whiny emails and posts saying my keyboard is emitting fanboy kryptonite, and newbies stumping for an ignore feature.

I'm not sure you know how long I've been around if you're calling me a newbie, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not sure what it would have to do with what I wrote, even if it were true, unless I missed an announcement somewhere along the way that answered my question.

Anyway, if you actually read my initial post (post 56 on page 3), you'll note that I actually said nothing about whether or not I thought anyone should ignore you or anyone. I simply asked if the admins here had looked into it (in response to what Dan Szym had written). In fact, in a second post I made on the subject, (see post 69 on page 3), I suggested that it would be impractical.

Furthermore, as should also be evident from my explanation of the feature (again, see post 69 on page 3), it does not "cover up the voice of the people" for anyone who does not want the voice covered up. If person A does not want to read my posts on the projo board, s/he can avoid reading my posts; if person B wants to read my posts, his/her ability to read what I've written is not affected in any way, shape, or form, by the decision of person A to not read my posts. As I said in the previous post, it's analogous to a killfile. I suggested previously that, at least in my opinion, this differs from censorship, though perhaps you view it differently.

I also note that you've not responded to my sincere question as to what you meant by "Professor Hats Sen. McCarthy" (see post 67 on page 3). Again, what did you mean by this? Are you confusing me for someone else?
   333. MM1f Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:39 AM (#1887904)
I'm really glad Bobby is dead so he doesnt have to see and hear this play out.
God...its one thing to cheat, the death threats are something else
   334. RobertMachemer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:40 AM (#1887908)
Eh, double posts suck. My apologies.
   335. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:43 AM (#1887909)
The validity or invalidity are besides the point. It's the idolatry of Bonds that's hilarious, that some of you would cling so tenaciously to that piece of #### that, when confronted with overwhelming evidence of the depth of his shittiness, instead of finally acknowledging what is patently obvious to anyone not in the throes of a hopeless Bonds fellatio-fest.


And the fact that you guys are seriously threatened by anyone who doesn't think Bonds should be castrated and run over by a train is also pretty hilarious.
   336. JC in DC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:45 AM (#1887911)
When amphetamines are brought up as a negative with records, one has to prove that the public does care about amphetamines. When steroids are brought as a negative, one has to prove that the public doesn't care about steroids. I guess one of the principles that the so-called Union became united on wasn't consistency.


Is that supposed to show inconsistency or the futility of our attempts to show logic to people like you? If it's wet outside and I claim it's been raining, and you argue it has not, you'd seem to need to explain why it's wet. And if it's dry the next day and I claim it's not raining, and you claim it is, you'd seem to bear the burden of explaining why it's dry. We've known about amp use for decades and yet few ever cared. Why shouldn't we demand some evidence that they have? And, we've just recently learned about steroids use, and so many people cared that Congress engaged a "witch hunt" they thought would be popular with their constituents (but, nobody cares!). Why shouldn't we expect some justification for the assertion no one cares?

But of course the "no one cares" strategy is the grandchild of the "Barry's been framed/never used" argument that died an ugly death about 18 mos ago and the child of the "Steroids have no effect" argument that's on a respirator. I don't care if Larry doesn't care - in fact I have no confidence LArry cares about anything, given the history he's shared with us. People clearly do. Enough to impress their Congressmen that dragging ballplayers to court would not hurt them; enough that clowns at this site called it a "show trial" (who was watching if no one cared - they called a show trial, and no one tuned in?).

Yeah, consistency.

And I love that you would dare make a point about consistency while embracing a TOS that has you lecturing BL about his behavior while reserving the right for you to call him names and engage in insulting behavior.
   337. JC in DC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:48 AM (#1887913)
!
   338.  nddc Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:48 AM (#1887914)
I have no real desire to get into a TSE debate. I don't see its purpose and its certainly not probative to anything here. Its just misdirectional. And while you or Acey or a few others could get into the debate, I doubt most of the people saying "It means nothing" are really going to add much. They read somewhere some overstatement that "Its worthless" and they would just cling to it.

Yeah, what's a TSE debate?

I wouldn't add much to this particular debate, but I will say that it's still pretty hard to run a reliable Internet poll, in my opinion. Several people I know have done a lot of good work to figure out how to weight the data to counteract the digital divide, which grows smaller every day but still exists.

The practical problem today is that there aren't many firms that have hired people who know how to do that properly. [They each think their proprietary systems are the best, which doesn't help matters; everyone wants to be George Gallup.] So the ones that have good statisticians on staff are surveying the bejesus out of their samples. Their panel participants are asked (if not obliged) to weigh in on so many topics that they don't really care about, or have well-formed opinions about.

This creates an effect that's the opposite of what you see with a convenience sample like SI's: I'd guess you have a problem similar to what you get if you use a Nielsen-type system to gauge TV viewing habits, with people mindlessly answering the bell whenever it rings.
   339. JC in DC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:50 AM (#1887916)
Can we drop the poll thing?
   340. Dr Love Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:55 AM (#1887919)
Can we drop the poll thing?

Are you conducting a poll to see if we can drop the poll debate?
   341. JC in DC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:58 AM (#1887920)
yeah. on the net.
   342.  nddc Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:58 AM (#1887921)
Can we drop the poll thing?

Like it was red-hot. Nice meeting you the other night, by the way, JC.
   343. robinred Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:59 AM (#1887923)
I think it's hilarious that people who should know better (i.e. - you two) are disputing the invalidity of internet polls.

The validity or invalidity are besides the point. It's the idolatry of Bonds that's hilarious, that some of you would cling so tenaciously to that piece of #### that, when confronted with overwhelming evidence of the depth of his shittiness, instead of finally acknowledging what is patently obvious to anyone not in the throes of a hopeless Bonds fellatio-fest.

So, they have fallen back on "Well, maybe Bonds is a #### but I still like him, and everybody else does too!" delusion.



Not really. You just have an unwillingess to see responses to Bonds-related issues as being on a continuum. The fact that the guy took steroids and lied about it sucks, but it just doesn't bug other people as much as it bugs you.

And how much of an ####### Barry Bonds is, and how we should react to his being an #######, really has nothing to do with whether internet polls are a valid way to measure public opinion, nor have I seen any evidence that anyone, other than you, and to a lesser extent Backlasher, is really connecting the two issues.

That said, I have learned a lot from the Union guys, as well as from Mefisto and Dial and others, on these threads about PEDs and I am glad that they have been on here, flamewars and all.

On a side note, Bonds' PR people knew the book was coming. I wonder if they advised him against doing the ESPN reality show, and he just insisted? Either way, Bonds' every action and every at-bat will be big news, at least at the start of the season.
   344. JC in DC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:00 AM (#1887924)
You too, Ace. I'm mIRCing now.
   345.  nddc Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:05 AM (#1887925)
Say hello from me - I gotta ramble.
   346. robinred Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#1887928)
We are amazed at the way that all such Instant Polls are trending.


Assuming you are serious, I find this to be an odd observation, given:

Most people's opinions of Barry Bonds
Most people's opinions of using illegal drugs
   347. robinred Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:14 AM (#1887929)
Let me clarify:

My observations, over the years, are that most people I deal with who follow baseball dislike Bonds as a public personality--often intensely. This was true long before BALCO and is truer now There are a variety of reasons for this, which have been discussed here ad nauseum.

Also, most people, at least in theory, are opposed to cheating and lying, and since many appear to believe Bonds to has done both extensively, I would be amazed if people didn't respond harshly in regards to BLB/PEDs on an internet poll.
   348. scotto Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:18 AM (#1887931)
What's a FUD? What's a TSE debate?

Bummer about the poll topic being dropped, Ace's comments on the methodological problems with them is an interesting one. A lot of wicked smart people are trying to figure it out, but no one is even all that close yet.
   349. RP Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:19 AM (#1887932)
Nobody is arguing what "internet polls mean" except the people wanting to play gotcha. Because this stings the Bonds camp, and they can't walk into a thread without manufacturing some issue that makes them right. And then the sheer outrage that is occuring b/c we were right is even more amazing. I'm not sure what's going on with Szym today.

This is what's so funny. There's no "Bond camp" at this point -- just people who don't think this is the end of the world. B/c it's not the end of the world, we aren't "stung" or upset by this news. OTOH, you have a lot invested in this. This should be your moment of glory. You were right all along about him...I'll admit, I had my doubts back in 2001-2002, but I was wrong about Bonds. Now you're pretty much totally vindicated.

But instead reacting with some class, you couldn't resist jumping on this online poll as proof that the fans hate steroids and hate Bonds. And as a result, you've mired in this inane discussion about the poll, which anyone with half a brain knows isn't proof of anything.

Can we drop the poll thing?

See? JC understands what's going on.

As I said, I admit that I was wrong about Bonds. And as a baseball fan, I'm very disappointed. But this doesn't rock my world or anything.
   350. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:22 AM (#1887936)
Perfectly said, JC.

Home runs are a function of hitting a baseball a particular distance and, as a result, uniquely subject to distortion through artifically-enhanced strength; the distance one can hit a ball being a function of, among other things, strength. Not only do we have this observation, which makes perfect sense standing alone, but we also have empirical evidence IN THE CASE OF BARRY BONDS HIMSELF that shows a clear increase in his ability to hit a baseball a longer distance after chemically enhancing his strength. One ball 450 feet plus before the roids begin at 36; 25 to 30 times after. It beggars belief that we wouldn't see similar changes for 440 feet, 430 feet, etc., as I'm sure someone will research in the next few years.

Barry Bonds hit the baseball significantly farther because he took steroids. Period. He hit more home runs because he took steroids. Period.

There isn't a case that any metric measured by the game of baseball is subject to this kind of distortion through the use of greenies, much less that the stats of any particular player benefitted from the use of greenies. Which is why the idea that somehow Barry Bonds's cheating is in any way akin to Hank Aaron or Willie Mays popping a few greenies insofar as the MLB record books are concerned, is simply preposterous.
   351. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:26 AM (#1887937)
What's a FUD? What's a TSE debate?

FUD usually stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

TSE... uh, maybe test of spoken English? Or maybe Tokyo Stock Exchange.
   352. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:26 AM (#1887938)
I conducted a random poll at the gym this afternoon. Two people were disappointed by Bonds's steroid use, one was jealous of him for being so big, five had no opinion, and one told me to shut up.

From these results, I think it's obvious that most Americans don't care about baseball.
   353. scotto Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:29 AM (#1887941)
Thanks greenback. Very nice Vlad.
   354. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:36 AM (#1887944)
The merits of internet polling and Bonds aside, is there anything MLB can do to come out even so much as mildly scathed in this situation? Rightfully or not, I think the period in baseball known as the late 80's up until just recently will be tarnished, completely. The only major power hitting superstar (pitchers aside) who's merits (I think) will make it out of this alive are Griffey's, and it's arguable he'll have only survived this debacle because of the career hindering injuries he's had. I think every major power hitting superstar of the 90's will have a shroud of suspicion surrounding their accomplishments, rightfully or not. I think it begins with Canseco/McGwire and ends with Bonds, with the likes of Pujols and Tiexeira marking the beginning of the "return to clean" era.

I think that's the real shame to come out of all this. That an entire decade of baseball will be discounted in the minds of a lot of people probably as soon as ten years from now because of the idiocy displayed by the likes of Bonds, Palmeiro, Canseco, and McGwire. Power hitters, I should say. The Biggios and Alomars of the 90's will likely go unquestioned, but I think the Bagwells and the Thomases and the MCGriffs and the Piazzas, etc. will simply be tucked under a blanket "steroid era" characterization, which is a shame.
   355. The Non-Catching Molina (sjs1959) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:45 AM (#1887946)
Gee, if Barry Bonds weren't an insufferable prick as a person, do you think the rage would be less? I do.

Yes, he probably did everything they say he did. Hell, I don't care if he chewed on an adrenal gland a home plate, he was still one of the most compelling sights I've ever seen on a ballfield.

And as for those of you who think greenies aren't as important as the roids are only deluding yourselves because the greenies involved our heroes when we were kids (i'm 47, BTW).

Throw out EVERYTHING Barry did prior to '99 if you want; he STILL goes to Cooperstown and deservedly so.
   356. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 08, 2006 at 03:49 AM (#1887948)
I'd put him in the HOF, too, because he gets in if he'd never played a game after he started taking roids.
   357. robinred Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:04 AM (#1887953)
I've always thought it was funny that one of the guys who wrote this has "Wada" as part of his name.
   358. Srul Itza Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:07 AM (#1887956)
I just read the whole excerpt, and I swear that just about everything of interest that is in there I recognized, because it was previously reported -- the facts about the calendars, the testimony of Kim Bell, the interviews by Novitzky with Conte and Valente, the grand jury testimony of Bonds and others. Hell, even the part about Bonds being jealous over McGwire and Sosa was bruited about here at least 3 years ago.

The only thing that the authors have done is tie it all together, and add a "You are There" narrative line.

That does not make any of the evidence any less damning. I just haven't seen anything new. To those who followed this thing closely -- kevin, BL, JC -- did any of that information sound like something you had not heard before?
   359. Srul Itza Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#1887958)
BTW:

What does TOS mean, other than The Original Series when referring to Star Trek?
   360. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:14 AM (#1887960)
One ball 450 feet plus before the roids begin at 36; 25 to 30 times after.
You do understand that these stats are made up, right? There are no accurate statistics about home run distances. They're not an official stat, they have no agreed-upon definition or methodology, and have no validation.
   361. MM1f Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:15 AM (#1887961)
"Gee, if Barry Bonds weren't an insufferable prick as a person, do you think the rage would be less? I do. "

I dont know, Raffy got some pretty severe backlash-and he didnt have death threat allegations on him either.

Also Barrys insufferability is so intwined in this. He started using because he was jealous of McGwire and thought the media hated him becuase he was black ect. And of course the media DID hate him (thought not for race) but beucase he was so ####### insufferable.
   362. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:17 AM (#1887962)
That does not make any of the evidence any less damning. I just haven't seen anything new. To those who followed this thing closely -- kevin, BL, JC -- did any of that information sound like something you had not heard before?
Srul -- thanks. I was wondering if that was just me. People are treating this as conclusive new evidence, but it seems to be old evidence. (Which has nothing to do with its validity one way or the other; I'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be anything we haven't heard before.)
   363. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:19 AM (#1887965)
TOS = Terms Of Service
   364. J. Cross Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:21 AM (#1887968)
I'd put him in the HOF, too, because he gets in if he'd never played a game after he started taking roids.

Ok, I would too. 8 All-star games, 3 MVP awards, 5 yrs. leading the league in OPS with 8 gold gloves. Surely enough to put him in. Does his "character" prevent him from going in on the first ballot?
   365. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:22 AM (#1887970)
TOS=Terms of Service

In other words, the code of conduct that we're supposed to follow in terms of respect for one another, language, etc. BL's "TOS, TOS, TOS" or whatever to DS was meant to imply that DS had violated his own TOS.
   366. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:24 AM (#1887971)
Major lag on Primer 2nite.
   367. I can't believe we're playing Francoeur(KevinHess) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:25 AM (#1887972)
TOS = Terms of Service

Raffy got so much backlash because people were stupid enough to believe him when he shook his finger at the camera. And then, when it was revealed that they had been hoodwinked, people were outraged. Because not only had Palmeiro taken steroids and lied to Congress and the TV viewers (what else can you expect?), he had been a self-righteous prick about it.
   368. I can't believe we're playing Francoeur(KevinHess) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:27 AM (#1887975)
Wow, I am really glad I answered that TOS question. Srul wouldn't know the answer, otherwise.
   369. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:29 AM (#1887976)
Srul -- thanks. I was wondering if that was just me. People are treating this as conclusive new evidence, but it seems to be old evidence. (Which has nothing to do with its validity one way or the other; I'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be anything we haven't heard before.)

In the past, it seemed like the information came out in little pieces. Leaked grand jury testimony, an ex-mistress's complaints, and charges from other anonymous sources left some slim room for doubt. I think that the book's contribution is that it corroborates those anecdotes with BALCO records.
   370. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:29 AM (#1887977)
Srul -- thanks. I was wondering if that was just me. People are treating this as conclusive new evidence, but it seems to be old evidence. (Which has nothing to do with its validity one way or the other; I'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be anything we haven't heard before.)

In the past, it seemed like the information came out in little pieces. Leaked grand jury testimony, an ex-mistress's complaints, and charges from other anonymous sources left some slim room for doubt. I think that the book's contribution is that it corroborates those anecdotes with BALCO records.
   371. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:40 AM (#1887981)
I'd put him in the HOF, too, because he gets in if he'd never played a game after he started taking roids.

Ok, I would too. 8 All-star games, 3 MVP awards, 5 yrs. leading the league in OPS with 8 gold gloves. Surely enough to put him in. Does his "character" prevent him from going in on the first ballot?


Heh heh heh.

Methinks some people here are still confusing the HOF with some abstract Hall of Statistical Merit. I suspect Pete Rose might have a few words to say to them.

Hey, Kevin, I've missed the last six or seven hours here. Are they still in denial? Or are they now just saying, "Yeah, but so what?"

And have spitballs, greenies and lasik made their obligatory appearances? It must have been an entertaining thread.

Yeah, it'll be one of the sublimer moments in baseball history if Bonds ever boosts his way over 755. A true American moment, even better than McGwire before Congress. I can hardly wait to watch Selig's speech---this is what makes us glad to be human.
   372. Srul Itza Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:41 AM (#1887982)
Srul, I hadn't seen any evidence that he was juicing as far back as 1998. The previous timeline had him loading up around 2000.

Also, the Winstrol and Clomid and extent of use seems to be new. Before, all they had was the Balco drugs, the Clear and the Cream.


I think we did now about some other stuff, based on the calendars, which had been reported on before. For example, I just googled Barry Bonds and Clomid, and got this story from the Chronicle in 2004, by the same writers about the Grand Jury proceedings:

"During the three-hour proceeding, two prosecutors presented Bonds with documents that allegedly detailed his use of a long list of drugs: human growth hormone, Depo-Testosterone, undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," insulin and Clomid, a drug for female infertility sometimes used to enhance the effect of testosterone."

Then there is this from June 2004, same paper:

"San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds obtained the steroid Winstrol from BALCO founder Victor Conte, track star Tim Montgomery told a federal grand jury last year."

The stuff from the off-season of 1998 is new, but is strikingly lacking in the same kind of attribution and documentation as the other stuff. Of course, the sources might be made transparent in the book, but if you follow the link that said "documentation" on the SI website, it all seems to be old news. Just another case of reporters taking their old news stories, repackaging them with some additional interviews and a "fly on the wall" perspective, and turning it into a book.

Not that it makes any of it less true. Perhaps some people just needed to have it all put together in one place, at one time, to understand it --

and STILL there were people vociferously defending him on ESPN in that article I linked earlier: "This is just another lame attack on Bonds"; "Greatest player ever"; "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", etc.

Strange, strange world.
   373. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:49 AM (#1887986)
The media is a big organism in the middle of a society plagued with institutions of racism. Barry Bonds may be an insufferable cheating prick. That might have been the greatest single factor in terms of the media's coverage of him. But to say that race was not a factor at all is to attempt to isolate the story of Barry Bonds from the society he lived it. It is to presume to assess not only the intentional, but also the unintentional motives of each member of the media who wrote about him. It is to presume to have a list of every card-carrying racist and also every non-self-aware aversive racist in the country (of which I imagine I might find my own name on).

As to the actual story, if it's true it certainly does extend the window of presumed steroid use by Bonds. But his guilt and behavior do not excuse any and all acts ever against him regardless of motivation.
   374. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:51 AM (#1887988)
I'm not sure whether this has been linked earlier in the thread, but Buster Olney's take on Bonds was excellent. If only Bonds had played it straight....
   375. AADeuce Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:53 AM (#1887989)
I returned from work tonite around 9:30, and was blown away by all this Bonds stuff. After reading ESPN and CNNSI, I instantly knew this thread would be huge. I did not expect most of it would be spent debating the legitmacy of online polling. I figured it would deal more with asterisks.
   376. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:58 AM (#1887994)
As to the actual story, if it's true it certainly does extend the window of presumed steroid use by Bonds. But his guilt and behavior do not excuse any and all acts ever against him regardless of motivation.

Of course they don't. But then what? Once you've exorcised all the unjustified and racially motivated slams against Bonds from the mix, you're still left to deal with what's left, which is enough to tar the legacy of any ballplayer, of any race.
   377. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:05 AM (#1888002)
Andy, that Olney column you posted, just change the names to Griffey Sr. and Griffey Jr.

Amen to that, Kevin. Griffey Jr. looks better to me every day.

Bonds is the Charles Van Doren of baseball. No matter how hard I try, I still can't figure out how he thought it wouldn't eventually all come out. Whatever we may think of his character, he certainly is a hell of a lot dumber than I ever would have imagined.
   378. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:14 AM (#1888011)
I agree with the Griffey sentiment. Imagine what he must've gone through, knowing he was as talented as he was and yet finding his body break down around him while inferior guys like Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro collecting accolades he just as easily could have collected were he speed-healing and bulking up like them. He didn't succumb. He should be doubly commended for it.
   379. J. Cross Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:17 AM (#1888014)
Methinks some people here are still confusing the HOF with some abstract Hall of Statistical Merit. I suspect Pete Rose might have a few words to say to them.

Andy, I'm not sure if this is a comment on my post or a response to my post but I didn't mean to imply that Bonds's character shouldn't be considered. I wouldn't vote for him on the first ballot even though I think his pre-99 performance (taken alone) warrant it. Would I vote him in after that? Hard to say. I do think he's done serious damage to the game by his cheating and keeping him out of the Hall COULD be considered the just thing to do. In the end, I think it might come down to your idea of what the Hall is meant to be.

I think Bonds v. Griffrey performance pre-98 is debateable but obviously Griffrey is in a different league in terms of character.

That might have been the greatest single factor in terms of the media's coverage of him. But to say that race was not a factor at all is to attempt to isolate the story of Barry Bonds from the society he lived it. It is to presume to assess not only the intentional, but also the unintentional motives of each member of the media who wrote about him. It is to presume to have a list of every card-carrying racist and also every non-self-aware aversive racist in the country (of which I imagine I might find my own name on).

And, assuming that race was a significant factor in his treatment by the media is also to make presumptions about the intentional and unintentional motivations of the media. You'll never get anywhere with this. Why not just discuss whether Bonds' treatment has been fair?
   380. TDF, situational idiot Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:35 AM (#1888029)
Kevin, Backlasher, et. al.:

You guys just don't get it. I, and many here like me, don't care, or at least as much as you do.

Barry Bonds was clearly the best player in baseball throughout the 90's - possibly the most dominant performance by one player in one decade ever. From 1990 through 1999, he had OPS+s anywhere from 161 to 206 (ironicly, if he started using after '98, it didn't help much to start - his OPS+ in '99 was "only" 162); he won 8 Gold Gloves; he stole 343 bases (as many as 52 in a season). Hell, he was a stolen base away from a 30/30 season in the strike year! He won 3 MVPs, and should have won a 4th. He was the best all-around player any of us had seen.

He was also an unpleasant man. He never gave anyone any reason to cheer for him, other than his performance. I see another ironic point in the other big baseball news of the day - where Kirby Puckett really started with the worst possible situation, Bonds started with the best. Where Puckett played every game as if it was his first day of Little League, Bonds plays as if it is a burden. Where Puckett was always viewed as a big lovable teddy bear, Bonds is always ready to "snap". Where Puckett (a very good ballplayer) made it easy to root for him, Bonds (possibly the greatest) made it easy for us to hate him.

Since the time Canseco hit the scene, there have been whispers of steroid use in baseball. Baseball didn't seem to care if anyone used steroids, so why should we? Sure, it seemed like cheating - but "everyone knew" that football players were juicing, that many Olympic athletes were juicing, so was it so out of line for baseball players to do it? Don't give me "purity of the game". Baseball (much like everything, once money is involved) has never been pure. A century ago, they threw games. During the 50's, 60's and 70's, players used "greenies". More coke went through the World Champion Pirates and Mets dugouts than through Bogota. Players have always doctored balls, corked bats, anything to gain an illegal advantage. Don't kid yourself and think it's ever been otherwise. If a record is "tainted" by cheating, every record in baseball is tainted.

It was, as someone stated earlier, because he was chasing "The Record". No one cared that Rose was likely on speed when he broke Cobb's record; no one cared that Rickey was likely on speed when he broke Brock's, and then Cobb's, records. But The Record? It had to be pure. Maris was originally given an asterisk. When McGwire approached Maris, people were shocked to learn he used Andro (something anyone could buy, legally, anywhere in the country) - The Record, again, was at risk from an unpure soul. Then it was Bonds, the man who didn't care how much we hated, who threatened The Record.

I admit, it was fun to watch McGwire, then Bonds, chase The Record. To me, though, it will be just as much fun watching Rollins chase The Big Daddy Record. Secondly, that's all it was/will be - fun. If you invest more in these guys than that, shame on you. They're not idols. They're not heroes. They're just athletes, and you should never see them as more than that. I was born in '62, and grew up in a big "sports fanatical" family. My favorites were guys like Rose and Morgan; Staubach; Chamberlain and Jabbar. But my parents would have never allowed us to look at these men as heroes (maybe because they had seen so many broken "heroes" themselves, like Mantle, Ali and Jim Brown, they wanted to make sure we didn't invest too much in the wrong people).

So anyway, it has appeared obvious for a couple of years now that Bonds has been using steroids (or at least, PEDs of some type). And I don't care. But you (and especially you, Backlasher) try to twist every comment everyone makes into looking like they do care as much as you. You pull sentences apart, word by word, to "prove" your point; and we are dragged into discussions where we are not allowed to argue our intent, only yours. You seem intelligent; you should know that's dishonest.

Kevin, you like to gloat that you knew all along, but your suspicions were based on the size of his head. That would be like saying "John Gotti has to be in the Mob; look at the way he dresses", then bragging when he's arrested. You're a scientist - you should know better.

The poll arguement is silly - a poll on a website, immediately following a very damning article (on the day of the death of a different, beloved player) means nothing, and everyone knows it. Hell, Vlad's "poll" at the gym is probably more scientifically meaningful. It's not "fanboyism" to say so, either.

And while you gloat over Bonds, just remember this: some other player is doing something else to gain an advantage that, 10 years from now, you'll be shocked and appalled over. Because that's the way it always was, and always will be.
   381. The Non-Catching Molina (sjs1959) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:38 AM (#1888032)
TDF, that is awesome...
   382. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:39 AM (#1888033)
Hey, Kevin, I've missed the last six or seven hours here. Are they still in denial? Or are they now just saying, "Yeah, but so what?"

There's a hard-hitting question. I suppose it's a bit much to ask you to gloat with class.

Bonds is the Charles Van Doren of baseball.

The Nixon characterization works better, as there's a nastiness to Bonds that Van Doren lacks. Of course I can understand why you wouldn't like that, as Nixon's reputation experienced a mysterious rehabilitation.
   383. Mefisto Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:42 AM (#1888036)
I just read the whole excerpt, and I swear that just about everything of interest that is in there I recognized, because it was previously reported -- the facts about the calendars, the testimony of Kim Bell, the interviews by Novitzky with Conte and Valente, the grand jury testimony of Bonds and others. Hell, even the part about Bonds being jealous over McGwire and Sosa was bruited about here at least 3 years ago.

Srul, this was my reaction also.

As for the winter 1998 claim, that was previously reported also. It came out when Bell did; she was the source of it. FWIW, her testimony to that effect is inconsistent with what Canseco says. His comments about Bonds indicate a start date a year later (winter of '99-00).

I'm intrigued by the outpouring of Griffey love. I've always considered his injury history and personality change to be, well, thought provoking.
   384. schuey Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:46 AM (#1888038)
Griffey Jr was already collecting a huge contract..about $114 million over 8 years..when his body began to break down. He had no incentive to cheat then. Perhaps he would not have, although he did whine plenty about SportsCenter showing his outs and Jim Edmond's home runs.
Smart people can do really stupid things and get caught up by them. Has anyone ever figured out why it was so necessary for the Plumbers to bug Larry O'Brien's office in the Watergate in 1972? He was not a major player in the Democratic party at the time and Nixon ended up winning confortably. But he did order the coverup after hearing, saying he wouldn't second-guess and eventually he went downhill. Bill and Hillary Clinton mindlessly invested in a bad real estate deal in Whitewater and eventually 12 of their associates went to jail, when a simple investigation would have shown it was a bad spot for retirement homes.
Even if Bonds were to win a libel suit, would anyone believe the outcome? Liberace won a libel suit in the 1950s agaisnt a reporter who insinuated he was gay. Does anyone believe Liberace was straight? Al Sharpton has not been descredited by losing the libel suit Steve Pagones filed agaisnt him over the Tawana Brawley. He is still regarded as a leader of the Black community and a power player in the Deomcratic party.
   385. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:46 AM (#1888040)
Imagine what he must've gone through, knowing he was as talented as he was and yet finding his body break down around him while inferior guys like Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro collecting accolades he just as easily could have collected were he speed-healing and bulking up like them. He didn't succumb. He should be doubly commended for it.

Hate to be a turd in the punchbowl, but he do we know definitively that Griffey didn't use? His poor health post-Seattle could prove that either a) he didn't resort to steroids, or b) he used them, but they weren't enough to keep him healthy.

Bonds/Sosa/McGwire/etc deserve all the condemnation that they get--but I don't see how their descent necessarily elevates someone like Griffey.
   386. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:48 AM (#1888042)
Bonds was not the best player in the game before 1998. Griffey was.

Um, no. Unless you're a Master Card Team of the Century voter.

What kind of criteria do you wish to name to support your case, besides the "I hate Bonds because he cheated" stat?

Here's one:

Best WARP3 through 1997:

Bonds:

13.4
12.8
12.1
11.7
11.6
11.4
10.3
9.9

Griffey:

12.4
12.1
11.7
10.4
10.4
9.1
7.9
5.3

Now, you may quibble with BP's defensive metrics. How much more do you want to give Griff for D? 1 win? 2? that still doesn't catch him up.
   387. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:52 AM (#1888044)
Ditto to #91.
   388. Boots Day Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:54 AM (#1888046)
Hate to be a turd in the punchbowl, but he do we know definitively that Griffey didn't use?

Plus, a year ago, Palmeiro would have been in the other column.
   389. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:06 AM (#1888050)
Griffey Jr was already collecting a huge contract..about $114 million over 8 years..when his body began to break down. He had no incentive to cheat then. Perhaps he would not have, although he did whine plenty about SportsCenter showing his outs and Jim Edmond's home runs.

I don't want to get too much into speculating what's inside people's heads, but I doubt it was money motivating Bonds. He'd made more than fifty million on salary alone by then, to say nothing of endorsements and all.
   390. J. Cross Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:09 AM (#1888053)
Miserlou, that's one way of presenting the stats. Of course, it ignores the fact that Griffey was only 27 at that point in time and Bonds was 32 and thus had more years during the heart of his career under his belt.

Here is WARP 3 for Bonds and Griffey at the same age through age 30 (with Pujols thrown in just for fun):

age...Griffey....Bonds...Pujols

19.....5.3.......N/A.....N/A
20.....7.9.......N/A.....N/A
21....11.7.......5.6.....10.2
22.....9.1.......7.1......8.4
23....12.1.......7.7.....11.8
24....10.4.......8.6.....10.5
25.....4.4......12.1.....10.8
26....10.4......11.7
27....12.4......12.8
28....12.5......13.4
29.....9.0.......9.9
30.....8.0......10.3

So, young Griffey smoked young Bonds but Bonds takes over in the late 20's. What are the chances that Pujols overtakes both of these guys?
   391. Paul D(uda) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:10 AM (#1888055)
I'm going to play the naive card, but do we know that Sosa cheated? His not speaking English thing in front of congress looks pretty stupid, but other than being really really good and then having a quick decline, what other evidence is there? That he turned out to be kind of a dick?
   392. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:10 AM (#1888056)
So Bonds gets free passes for years despite mountains of circumstantial evidence because "nothing's been proven" but when Griffey is praised for not doing it all of a sudden the tone is "well we don't know he didn't do it?"


I was willing to take an "innocent until proven guilty" stance with Bonds in the early going, and I'm more than willing to do it with Griffey, who has not a scrap of circumstantial evidence or hearsay against his name. Maybe that's presumptuous, but I'd like to think at least one truly great player from my childhood was clean, naive as that may be.

As for incentive to cheat, Bonds had made 52+ million through 1998 (far more if we presume that he started even later). Where was his incentive to cheat? Simple. He wanted to be the best.
   393. Zach Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:18 AM (#1888059)
Regarding performance enhancing effects of steroids, I will note that, working on the assumption that they do enhance performance, I was able to peg 1998/1999 as the time when Barry started juicing at a time when all the publicly available information suggested it was two or three years later (the evidence is very obvious; I haven't been able to do this for any other player). I remember making some point at the time of the BALCO revelations that there was some evidence BALCO targeted athletes who were already using, and that this might affect the HOF vote on Barry.

I read the article and the excerpt. Not much is new in the sense of being previously unreported (although these authors were the first ones to report much of this information). They seem to have done a pretty good job in connecting all the dots -- at one point they mention that at the time of the BALCO grand jury, at least 15 people had direct knowledge of Bonds's juicing.

Basically, I think the book will be very interesting for those who are interested in the details and the MO of juicing, but if you just want to know whether he did it, that information has already been out for a while.
   394. Steve Phillips' Hot Cougar (DrStankus) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:31 AM (#1888064)
kevin Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:57 PM (#1887811)
I think it's hilarious to see the Bonds-supporters retreating to the ledge, disputing the validity of internet polls.


Internet polls should be disputed regardless of their result.

How can you call yourself a scientist? Are you serious?

Keep your hands away from data of any kind for you have demonstrated that you are not fit to handle it.
   395. PerroX Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:32 AM (#1888065)
How long can people keep beating a dead horse?

'Course, "beating your meat" is the primary purpose of the 'net.

And whippin' a black man for sport is a 400-year-old American tradition.

I was disappointed that Barry Bonds used PEDs and disillusioned to a great extent as a result, but that's a damned good thing. People are so het up over Bonds because he's punctured their childhood fantasies about the sport of baseball. 'Course, it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I'm sure Kevin and his ilk have spilled just as many words denigrating McGwire's character elsewhere on this site.

Thank you, Barry, not only for performing amazing feats of strength in America's biggest circus tent over over the past several years, but for exposing the punks who aren't fit to hold your biohazard container.
   396. Steve Phillips' Hot Cougar (DrStankus) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:36 AM (#1888067)
The Union,

Your childhood heroes have feet of clay.

Get over it.

Sincerely,

The rest of the world
   397. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:38 AM (#1888069)
Miserlou, that's one way of presenting the stats. Of course, it ignores the fact that Griffey was only 27 at that point in time and Bonds was 32 and thus had more years during the heart of his career under his belt.

Here is WARP 3 for Bonds and Griffey at the same age through age 30 (with Pujols thrown in just for fun):

age...Griffey....Bonds...Pujols

19.....5.3.......N/A.....N/A
20.....7.9.......N/A.....N/A
21....11.7.......5.6.....10.2
22.....9.1.......7.1......8.4
23....12.1.......7.7.....11.8
24....10.4.......8.6.....10.5
25.....4.4......12.1.....10.8
26....10.4......11.7
27....12.4......12.8
28....12.5......13.4
29.....9.0.......9.9
30.....8.0......10.3

So, young Griffey smoked young Bonds but Bonds takes over in the late 20's. What are the chances that Pujols overtakes both of these guys?


That has nothing to do with the question; "Who was the best player in baseball prior to 1998?"

David Wright may end up burying Albert Pujols in career value, and age related peak value, but if you answer the question "Who has been the best player of the aughts?" David Wright, I want what you're smoking.
   398. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:46 AM (#1888075)
The compromise they settled upon was that the commissioner would retain the BIOB power for gambling-related matters, but not for anything else. All other discipline was subject to collective bargaining and grievance arbitration.

I knew we had this conversation before. I think it was in the "Sidney Ponson beat up a Cameraman" thread.

The BIOB law, despite the way it's written, is not meant to be a "I'm The MLB COMMISIONER, BIATCH!"
type of law. You can't use it anywhere.
   399. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:48 AM (#1888078)
That has nothing to do with the question; "Who was the best player in baseball prior to 1998?"

Craig Biggio, BIATCH
   400. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: March 08, 2006 at 07:28 AM (#1888106)
Again, get over yourself. You turned out to be right, you didn't cure cancer.


Wow, did you and Nieporent change screen names or something? Or is it the steroids that are causing you to be an #######? Well, allow me to retort.

The point isn't exclusively that we were right and you were wrong, it's that you were wrong and you were ######## about it the whole time.

It's that your massive wrongness comes from, in the worst instances (yours, Treder's, Nieporent's) a stupid, at once nihilistic and panglossian (and that is some fuct up stuff) belief that in the context of a game, a player ought to be able to do *anything* he wants to his body or health to gain an edge.

It's not just that we were right and you were wrong, it's that the fanboys and the nutjob ideologues were cheerfully willing to sacrifice any notions of fair play in favor of Ohhh stats! look at Barry swing! Or even worse, to the idea that "steroids-use is FREEEDOM!"

In other words, it's not just that you were wrong, it's also that you advocated such an atrocity of moral calculus that you were willing to sacrifice what baseball means to the instant gratification of your wanking devotion to St. Barry, inflated power-based offense, and in some cases, to a bullshit ideology which seems to manifest stupidity and evil in every situation to which it's applied.

It was *you* jackasses who were enthusiastic advocates of the idea that human beings should be lab rats for your entertainment, which you rationalised on such bullshit grounds of Free Will that even Geddy Lee couldn't articulate as shrilly.

And just for you, Szym, it's not that we were right, Szym, it's that when we were such a minority, you turned a total blind eye to the times when Ross was butchered and kevin and JC and BL and Andy and I were called all sorts of names by pro-steroids crowd, in nearly every early thread on this subject. And where were you when Furtado kept posting Dayn's pro-steroids piece which even Dayn has disowned? And where were you when Mahnken would fire off some stupid, pro-steroids editorial in posting a Primer thread? I dunno, but the BTF cops sure come out when kevin turns the other fist. Since we're vindicated, well *now* you're the pecksniff arbiter of civility: turnabout is apparently not fair play.

As for the censorship: fine, do it. It's a site owned by steroids apologists/enthusiasts. And it's apparently meant to be *for* them too. Censorship is a gutless thing, but hey, anything to preserve your bubble.
Page 4 of 9 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(905 - 4:09pm, Jul 24)
Last: Manny Coon

NewsblogA's designate Johnson for assignment
(11 - 4:05pm, Jul 24)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2991 - 4:03pm, Jul 24)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogPaper of Record Archives (Vintage Sporting News) Gone
(30 - 4:03pm, Jul 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(7 - 3:56pm, Jul 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(86 - 3:51pm, Jul 24)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogYadier Molina serves his brother crackers on a plate — home plate
(24 - 3:50pm, Jul 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(67 - 3:48pm, Jul 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: 7-24-14
(28 - 3:39pm, Jul 24)
Last: mathesond

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(379 - 3:23pm, Jul 24)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogIntentional Walk Issued to Bonds Yields Unintentional Disbelief (Happy Birthday, Barry)
(1 - 3:21pm, Jul 24)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

Newsblog2015 Competitive Balance Lottery Results
(26 - 3:03pm, Jul 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogBuck Showalter, Tommy Hunter bemoan shrinking strike zone in Orioles loss
(7 - 2:27pm, Jul 24)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(41 - 2:12pm, Jul 24)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

NewsblogJournal News: Recap of Derek Jeter Retirement Gifts
(28 - 1:52pm, Jul 24)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh Rises

Page rendered in 0.7075 seconds
52 querie(s) executed