Not that it applies to this or any other insignificant celebrity story, but when it comes to politics, public opinion matters a whole hell of a lot because, you know, it's a democracy. The reason a majority of people believed Iraq had WMDs was that it was operating on imperfect knowledge, and was actually stupid enough to belive what its government was telling it. Those in power live in fear of public opinion, which is why they work so hard to shape it.

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

Hmm, you can. Some sites don't let you though (ESPN comes to mind). Although how many people are sitting there voting hundreds of times over? (Do I really want to know?)

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.

Well, what about my opinion? *sniff* Doesn't that count as evidence?

That is what I was trying to say, I just didn't have the right words for it.

JC is very eloquent. But it doesn't matter, because as long as the first fifteen pages of someone's undergraduate textbook tells them to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, they aren't going to examine that which works contrary to their holy book.

If things are as Larry says, he should go vote 1000 times. Vinay can teach him how to erase the tracking cookie so he can then show that people are apathetic.

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 ___")

Public opinion cannot be wrong about public opinion. And nobody is asking the public to make a factual conclusion.

And its not a WGAS. Backlasher is a man of the people and I care about the people think.

Geez, Backlasher, forget to get your Haloperidol refilled while you were away?


Bonds bought it all up for his new doping scheme.

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.


You wouldn't. You could just have an asterisk next to official presentations of Bonds's year by year batting record after 1998 noting that it was obtained through cheating and the official baseball record book would simply note Roger Maris (or Sammy Sosa, if you choose) as the single-season home run record holder with 61 in 1961. The number of homers hit off Pitcher X in 1999 wouldn't have to change, nor would the number of homers hit in Candlestick Park in 1999.

The all-time home run list is a little trickier. You could either keep Bonds where he is at 708 with an asterisk explaining his serial cheating or you could do the more appropriate thing and not recognize a single homer after 1998 and keep him at 300 and whatever or, best yet, simply expunge him from the list. Other options are available.

"When talking about public opinion, an internet poll--one that has 30,000+ respondants--is a pretty good measure of it."

Much as I hate to touch this particular tar baby, Larry is right. To actually know what people think with any degree of reliability, you need a bunch of things this poll doesn't have:
*A truly random sampling of respondants.
*A question that's worded in a neutral manner.
*A method of controlling access to prevent multiple votes from one voter.
*A location that isn't contaminated by proximity to an article about the subject being polled.
*Etc.

I'm sure that today's news further damaged the public perception of Bonds (how could it not?), but a poll like this one isn't a useful predictive or analytical tool.

There must be something in wiki about "freeping" internet polls.

SugarBear: The problem is, that officially Michigan didn't play any of those years they were declared ineligible. Ben Johnson officially didn't participate in the 1988 Olympics. The rules of the Olympics and NCAA AT THE TIME were specifically violated and the explicit punishment was enacted.

In baseball, a player is only ineligible if he is specifically caught violating the rules. The punishments never have been retroactive -- in fact, in baseball, if the game isn't legally protested and another play happens, then the previous play is official and irrevocable. If a player hits a home run in the first inning and in the third inning the same bat breaks and is found be full of cork, he's thrown out of the game, declared out and, of course, suspended. But the home run still counts. Forever.

So let's assume that everything in this book is true. It's not a crazy assumption. Bonds violated the rules, but wasn't caught. He hit home runs while breaking the rules (and yes, steroids were against the rules, they just weren't tested for). The game continued and no protest was filed. The home runs are all official.

But let's say they could go back and change the outcome. They would have to retroactively declare Bonds ineliglble, which gives two options: turn every PA he had from 1998 onward into an out, which of course is impossible because that changes the entire nature of every game, or forfeit every game San Francisco played since 1998, including their pennant. Actually, that's the only practicable way to expunge the records.

Of course, there is legitimately a slipperly slope here: it's likely that every team in MLB has had at least one player using steroids at some point in the last decade, so you're going to have to start forfeiting games all over the place. You HAVE to, otherwise you're on a crusade to "Get Barry", which is not exactly a noble cause. It's likely that nearly every division winner will lose their title, that there will be no official World Champions for most of the past decade, and in general the "steroid era" will stand out as a bizzare kind of swiss cheese in the official records.

Then, going forward, how do you handle players who test positive? Do you expunge all their records, and forfeit all their games? Or do you simply suspend them because they tested positive? That's not exactly fair, you're punishing players in the past not because they cheated, but because there wasn't a system in place to catch them cheating.

Get over it. He hit 73 home runs. Does that make him the greatest HR hitter in history? No. It just means he hit 73 home runs.

Go argue about the Hall of Fame. The record is simply what it is: a record of something that happened. Expunging it so you can have a warm fuzzy feeling about Maris makes that warm, fuzzy feeling a delusion, because it's masturbatory.

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.

I think this particular poll does an effective job of measuring intensity of opinion. I don't think anyone can really know which side is "more likely" to vote in an online poll.

In other words, these polls don't tell me the answer I'd get if I commissioned a reputable, random poll, but it does give me an idea of what I would see if I commissioned a reputable, random poll and asked people how strongly they felt about their opinion.

And yes, strength of opinion does matter.

I wonder how much money Pujols lost by not getting the MVP bonus money in his contract because of Bonds using?

As far as I can tell, Pujols didn't have an MVP bonus clause in his contract until 2004. He got $50,000 for finishing third that year.

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.

Ah, I get it, jolly good.

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.

"Although how many people are sitting there voting hundreds of times over? (Do I really want to know?)"

People do it all the time with online political polls. (Link)

Bonds bought it all up for his new doping scheme.

That guy is so horny the crack of dawn isn't even safe!

"There must be something in wiki about "freeping" internet polls."

Wow, deja vu.

Public opinion cannot be wrong about public opinion. And nobody is asking the public to make a factual conclusion.

Sure public opinion is what it is, but when the results of the poll were linked here, I'm not so sure that it wasn't with the implicit statement that certain policies should be followed as a result.

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.

Not odd at all, anyone (and I mean anyone) can post on Wikipedia or change an entry- check back in a little while you'll see something different there.

In any case, the Wikipedia entry includes both a case "for" and a case "against" Hiss- you obviously didn't read down further for the anti-Hiss case.

What's fascinating about the Hiss case is the combination of his obvious guilt, with the utter refusal by some many to believe it. Partly I think it's the result of the way the evidence agaisnt him has emerged- in bits and pieces over 40 years. It would have been perfectly reasonable (wrong but reasonable) to believe in his guilt at the time of his original conviction, then another piece of info would emerge, not enough to persuade a believer, then info casting doubt on the government's role (ie: Nixon etc) would emerge- the believer in Hiss' innoncence would believe even more strongly.

Over the years more and more info emerged- taken as a whole (which is not how the believers ever took it- they'd look at one part of the evidence- reject it, years later get another piece reject that piece and so on) is overwhelming- but the believers will look at it, point at one minor apparent dicrepancy ("See, 3 KGB generals said Hiss was spy "X", but a KGB janitor says he doesn't think so, he thought someone else was- he's innocent I tell you Innocent!!!)

This might be a stupid question, but for the PED-crusaders out there (you know who you are), how do you feel about this?

As cliche as it is I was hoping I was wrong, I was part of the camp from the very start when it showed up on Primer, at least as far back as I started posting here which has to have been years now. We were just dismissed as trolls then.

So yea you bet yea I feel some vidication, I also stopped caring if I was labeled a troll by anyone. I did give up the fight long ago though, when it became plainly obvious who was wearing the blinders

Either way it taints the game I do love and that sucks

I'm here to protect this game<>joking/ The Natural<>

a layout so cavernous that a minotaur couldn't navigate it.

That is a brilliant turn of the phrase... I disagree... but brilliant none the less.

People do it all the time with online political polls.

I'd say that the people who participate in online political polls have more motivation and desire to vote again and again than the average guy reading SI.com who is voting in the Barry Bonds poll. People are more rabid about politics than Barry Bonds.

Of course, to truly know, I'd have to conduct a poll.

Although how many people are sitting there voting hundreds of times over? (Do I really want to know?)

I'm pretty sure it'd take me about ten minutes to write and execute a script that would vote hundreds or thousands of times.

There must be something in wiki about "freeping" internet polls.

If there is not, you can go write something, right after you got over your incredularity that its a topic of discussion.

And there are plenty of polls for you to go look at if you don't like that.

And you can run a poll here to see if you get "no information" from the output.

As I said, everyone that is hanging onto Mahnken's little misdirectional one liner is certainly not the class of people that have a good track record on inferences.

But, I can play too, "all I said was 'anyone want to reopen the discussion about the public's opinon of Barry Bonds. Period." LOL. This is great.

But have fun. The public does care about doping. Its evident in instant polls, internet polls, commissioned polls, weblogs, actions of their elected officials, conversations in bars, and just good old fashion common sense.

And if you think this isn't so, just like you may have thought that Bonds didn't juice, bring something to the table.

But its more fun for people to regurgitate what they read as an undergraduate under the pretense of being an authority.

Wasn't the article two pages long at first? Now it's 14 pages.

Of course, there is legitimately a slipperly slope here: it's likely that every team in MLB has had at least one player using steroids at some point in the last decade, so you're going to have to start forfeiting games all over the place. You HAVE to, otherwise you're on a crusade to "Get Barry", which is not exactly a noble cause. It's likely that nearly every division winner will lose their title, that there will be no official World Champions for most of the past decade, and in general the "steroid era" will stand out as a bizzare kind of swiss cheese in the official records.

Furthermore, if we're interested in obliterating the records of all those who used PEDs, don't forget amphetamines as well -- most of the records since World War II would be at risk.

<quote>The authors write that Anderson started Bonds on Winstrol, also known as stanozolol, the longtime favorite steroid of bodybuilders, disgraced sprinter Ben Johnson and baseball player Rafael Palmeiro. In 100 days, Bonds packed on 15 pounds of muscle, and at age 35 hit home runs at the best rate of his career, once every 10.4 at bats. But he also grew too big, too fast. He tore his triceps tendon, telling Bell that the steroids "makes me grow faster, but if you're not careful, you can blow it out.</quote>

LOL. Virtually every reference to steroids in the article is factually inaccurate. 15 pounds of muscle gain on Winstrol alone? Not in this lifetime. 3 week cycles? 1 week off? Nugga please. Hmmm, I wonder what other "truths" are fudged?

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

I actually own a WADA baseball cap. I offer it to the highest bidder.

JC is very eloquent. But it doesn't matter, because as long as the first fifteen pages of someone's undergraduate textbook tells them to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, they aren't going to examine that which works contrary to their holy book.

Is this the <s>self-righteous jac</s> Union equivalent of "Well said?"

Yeah, Bonds almost certainly used steroids. Everybody pretty much knows that now. Get over yourself.

If you're really concerned about the technological issues preventing people from using and enjoying the site, you really should know that, from our feedback, the number one technological issue that prevents people from doing that is your keyboard.

If there is not, you can go write something, right after you got over your incredularity that its a topic of discussion.

And there are plenty of polls for you to go look at if you don't like that.

And you can run a poll here to see if you get "no information" from the output.

Now that's LOL funny.

So yea you bet yea I feel some vidication, I also stopped caring if I was labeled a troll by anyone. I did give up the fight long ago though, when it became plainly obvious who was wearing the blinders

Either way it taints the game I do love and that sucks

Yeah, but the question I was trying to ask was "do you feel good today"? Is today a happy day for you? Does the feeling of vindication outweigh the sucky feeling you have that the game is tainted?

These morons on the radio are happier today than they were when there favorite team won the World Series.

Wasn't the article two pages long at first? Now it's 14 pages.

Yes.

And using an internet poll is fine as long as you have an appreciation for the context in which it is gathered, thus the reliability and shortcomings. It's not exactly "Star Wars vs. Star Trek" in terms of great debates.

The public does care about doping.

Yea, look how everyone demonized Mike Schmidt after he admitted doping.

Wasn't the article two pages long at first? Now it's 14 pages.

That doesn't just happen.

Clearly, the article is juiced.

QED.

a layout so cavernous that a minotaur couldn't navigate it

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the whole point of the story was that the Minotaur couldn't find his way out -- it was designed as a prison. The only person who found his way out was Theseus, using Ariadne's thread.

At least this came out before he passed the Babe.

Very little of the information here is new. The few new facts involve the documents (Anderson's calendar) that have never been made public. The only new aspect is that the reporters collected it all as a quasi-indictment.

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.


Szym, that is not even close to being a "gotcha" Despite the fact that most came just to talk, the Union has accepted burden on every single one of these issues and produced evidence to meet its burden. You got plenty that the public cares about doping. You haven't got enough FUD to stop it.

I missed the latest greenie rounds so I have no idea what you are talking about in the converse.

But you know what, I think producing evidence is a pretty good idea no matter what you want to pretend the burden is. So if you got, show it off son.

Sure public opinion is what it is, but when the results of the poll were linked here, I'm not so sure that it wasn't with the implicit statement that certain policies should be followed as a result.


Yep, my posts and all posts of the Union are dripping with implicit-y. While Mahnken says something -- Period.

And of course when the Vladdy's get involved they can just show, "Internet Polls have error." -> "Backlasher thinks internet polls are how we should decide the steroid issue." -> "We are right, and the Union is wrong." "And by the way, he uses ad hominems and puts words in peoples mouths."

Welcome to BTF, my friends. Welcome to BTF.

"People are more rabid about politics than Barry Bonds."

I thought so as well, and then I remembered this story, and now I'm not so sure.

If people are genuinely enraged by the relevations, we should know for sure in a couple of days, after somebody conducts a real poll. If they're genuinely apathetic, same deal.

In microcosm, that's the thing that irritates me the most about this whole steroid debate: the rush to be the very first to pass judgment, at the cost of certainty and moral value. All the facts will come out in their own time, and when they do, everybody will know the score; today's news is itself a great demonstration of that point.

People do it all the time with online political polls.

Yeah

LOL. Virtually every reference to steroids in the article is factually inaccurate. 15 pounds of muscle gain on Winstrol alone? Not in this lifetime. 3 week cycles? 1 week off? Nugga please. Hmmm, I wonder what other "truths" are fudged?

Spell it out, or are we to just believe you because of your member name? Is this experience or research or both?

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.

I would tend to agree. But I'd want to see the actual documents, to see whether they unambiguously say these things or whether these are merely someone's interpretations of vague notations. (In other words, does it say "C 5/1/03," and someone says, "C must refer to Clear, and this document must refer to Barry Bonds"? Or does it say "Bonds: Winstrol: 3 ccs: 5/1/03"? You get what I mean.)

"People are more rabid about politics than Barry Bonds."

Actually, on this site, that's not true.

Not odd at all, anyone (and I mean anyone) can post on Wikipedia or change an entry- check back in a little while you'll see something different there.


Actually, I love Wikipedia, but take a look at the bottom on the "Steroid" entry on Wikipedia, under "External Links" for evidence of this and a nice laugh.

"Is this experience or research or both?"

He's claimed to be what his name says he is in numerous past threads.

SugarBear: The problem is, that officially Michigan didn't play any of those years they were declared ineligible. Ben Johnson officially didn't participate in the 1988 Olympics. The rules of the Olympics and NCAA AT THE TIME were specifically violated and the explicit punishment was enacted.


Huh? Michigan went to the final four in 1992 and that is no longer officially recognized. It took ten years before they got caught and it wasn't until ten years later that the record book was expunged. Ben Johnson ran a 9.79 world record 100 that was later expunged from the books. That addressed the "his 73 home runs happened" point.

On what I think is your other point, his records wouldn't be expunged because he violated the rules of baseball; they would be expunged because he used performance-enhancing drugs ... which obviously enhanced his performance. That is the essence of why we take cheaters' records off the books; that the cheating sometimes coincides with breaking the defined rules of the sport is merely coincidental.

The woman who took the subway through half of the Boston Marathon was stripped of her victory and if it had been a world record, it wouldn't have stood. You think the rules and regulations of the marathon specifically stated that "Times obtained through riding the subway for part of the event are against the rules and strictly forbidden"?

I thought so as well, and then I remembered this story, and now I'm not so sure.

Damn, I never heard that story before. Thankfully MLB cleaned all that up and allowed us to vote 25 times. No more ballot stuffing!

Actually, on this site, that's not true.

No ####. This is a baseball site, and in no way representative of the general public.

Wow. The "Steroid" entry has been fixed already. Good work boys.

All the facts will come out in their own time, and when they do, everybody will know the score

I doubt your premise.

I also doubt your conclusion regardless of whether or not the premise proves true.

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.

I'm sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. Such a statement requires either complete mathematical illiteracy or complete intellectual dishonesty. It simply has <u>no validity whatsoever for any purpose</u>.

A self-selected survey (where, incidentally, one can respond as many times as one chooses) is absolutely worthless. It doesn't tell you what the general public thinks or what SI readers think. Internet "polls" are less reliable than horoscopes. They're for fun, nothing more.

Sure public opinion is what it is, but when the results of the poll were linked here, I'm not so sure that it wasn't with the implicit statement that certain policies should be followed as a result.

-- Yep, my posts and all posts of the Union are dripping with implicit-y. While Mahnken says something -- Period.

I wasn't trying to single you out. My point applied just as much to those, like Mahnken, who were taking the opposite view and trying to talk about how it wasn't representative, etc.

Why does it matter either way?

in his buttocks of Winstrol

This is a pretty nasty side effect.

...take a look at the bottom on the "Steroid" entry on Wikipedia, under "External Links" for evidence of this and a nice laugh."

I found what I think you were talking about in the past edits, but I was confused for a bit there. I mean, I find retinoic acid as hilarious as the next guy...

If you're really concerned about the technological issues preventing people from using and enjoying the site, you really should know that, from our feedback, the number one technological issue that prevents people from doing that is your keyboard.


TOS, TOS, TOS --- Szym. But that was funny. Two snaps.

He's claimed to be what his name says he is in numerous past threads.

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?

I am asking him to spell out the false statements and why.

Including the word "buttocks" in that passage struck me as completely unnecessary and intentionally sensational. It does imply that someone else had to do it for him (though not necessarily), but you still could have said that he "was injected" and left it that.

"Wow. The "Steroid" entry has been fixed already. Good work boys"

I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. IIRC, more than 90% of Wikipedia vandalism is corrected within five minutes.

SugarBear: The problem is, that officially Michigan didn't play any of those years they were declared ineligible. Ben Johnson officially didn't participate in the 1988 Olympics. The rules of the Olympics and NCAA AT THE TIME were specifically violated and the explicit punishment was enacted.

-- Huh? Michigan went to the final four in 1992 and that is no longer officially recognized. It took ten years before they got caught and it wasn't until ten years later that the record book was expunged.

Yes, but I believe Larry's point was that in 1992, there were rules that barred what Michigan was doing (and there were rules in 1988 prohibiting what Ben Johnson did). OTOH, there was nothing in MLB that prohibited what Bonds may have done in 1998 and the policies that exist today shouldn't be applied retroactively.



The woman who took the subway through half of the Boston Marathon was stripped of her victory and if it had been a world record, it wouldn't have stood. You think the rules and regulations of the marathon specifically stated that "Times obtained through riding the subway for part of the event are against the rules and strictly forbidden"?

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 think you're all missing the really important story: We have this incredibly significant Bonds story and two important WBC games, and the "John Flaherty is retiring" thread still got 22 comments. Now that's amazing.

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."

To quote the fan taunt, "Scoreboard." Or, in this case, "Turnstiles." As I've said many times, when fans stop showing up, that will show they care. Anything less merely shows that if you tell people you expect them to have an opinion on something, they will. That's not the same as caring.

If you're really concerned about the technological issues preventing people from using and enjoying the site, you really should know that, from our feedback, the number one technological issue that prevents people from doing that is your keyboard.

Dan Szymborksi, have any BTF administrators (or whatever you call 'em) looked into what they have at http://www.projo.com/redsox/?ln ? Specifically, I refer to the "block user" feature of the "your turn" web-boards.

Furthermore, if we're interested in obliterating the records of all those who used PEDs, don't forget amphetamines as well -- most of the records since World War II would be at risk.


There's absolutely no comparison between greenies and steroids and it's silly to try to compare them. It's like saying Red Bull is a PED.

Dan Szymborksi, have any BTF administrators (or whatever you call 'em) looked into what they have at http://www.projo.com/redsox/?ln ? Specifically, I refer to the "block user" feature of the "your turn" web-boards.

That's what this site is missing, censorship! I say we run an internet pole on who should go.

a layout so cavernous that a minotaur couldn't navigate it


Not to be pedantic or anything, but the whole point of the story was that the Minotaur couldn't find his way out -- it was designed as a prison.

I think that was BL's point -- the Minotaur couldn't navigate the Labyrinth, and users cannot navigate BTF (not taking a position on that, just noting).

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.

So if Rosie Ruiz had jogged in place on the subway she'd be within the letter of the rules?

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.

Yes, but I believe Larry's point was that in 1992, there were rules that barred what Michigan was doing (and there were rules in 1988 prohibiting what Ben Johnson did). OTOH, there was nothing in MLB that prohibited what Bonds may have done in 1998 and the policies that exist today shouldn't be applied retroactively

And as I wrote, his records wouldn't be expunged because of retroactive application of a rule; they would be expunged for using performance enhancing drugs which obviously enhanced his performance. Which is, as I wrote, the essence of why we expunge the records of cheaters, even if we don't catch them right away. And even though their sport hadn't gotten around to being able to test for them or prohibit them, in part because of union recalcitrance.

There's absolutely no comparison between greenies and steroids and it's silly to try to compare them. It's like saying Red Bull is a PED.

Good point. That settles the argument that has gone on on Primer for about four years now. Some guy named "SugarBear Blanks" says that "there's absolutely no comparison." Guess that's that. We don't have to discuss it anymore.

That's what this site is missing, censorship!

That's not censorship. It's giving the readers a choice.

The problem is that you'll end up having some people bad-mouthing posters who can't see what's being written (thus not giving them the chance to respond) and potentially ruining their reputations.

That feature doesn't ban posters altogether; it just allows individual posters to block the posts of selected people from their own view. At least, that's how I think it works. Of course, it's easy enough to ignore people anyway. Like now.

That's what this site is missing, censorship! I say we run an internet pole on who should go.

Yes, and let's have another thread referendum on it on too. And maybe we can put another instant poll on the sidebar, which of course would be 100% valid and accurate.

To quote the fan taunt, "Scoreboard." Or, in this case, "Turnstiles."

The attendance that increased after MLB addressed the steroid issue?

As I've said many times, when fans stop showing up, that will show they care.

I would guess the spin would be, "They didn't show up this year after the increased testing, so it shows they want to go back to the glory days of steroids."

Anything less merely shows that if you tell people you expect them to have an opinion on something, they will. That's not the same as caring.


That's magnitude of caring. That's whether you don't eat potato strips unless they are called "Freedom Fries" because of your anger at the French.

I don't opine as to whether "Had MLB not addressed the steroid epidemic, people would have boycotted games?" I opine as to "What people want to do about the steroids problem?"

If you think that 'people would never care enough to boycott' I'm not sure if I know the answer to that question.

But what I do know is that most people want the doping out of the game, and Andy looks compassionate compared to how most baseball fans would like to deal with offenders.

But I'd want to see the actual documents, to see whether they unambiguously say these things or whether these are merely someone's interpretations of vague notations. (In other words, does it say "C 5/1/03," and someone says, "C must refer to Clear, and this document must refer to Barry Bonds"? Or does it say "Bonds: Winstrol: 3 ccs: 5/1/03"? You get what I mean.)

Apparently, per the article "The Documentation" at the link, Anderson's documents contain notations under the heading "BLB 2003" with dates and cities of Giants road games, along with notations (allegedly) recording corresponding drug intake.

***

SI's link above now includes the excerpt from the book, which was not initially posted.

That feature doesn't ban posters altogether; it just allows individual posters to block the posts of selected people from their own view. At least, that's how I think it works. Of course, it's easy enough to ignore people anyway. Like now.

I thought that idea was brought up in one of those Jim's Lab threads and shouted down by the "any restriction is censorship" crowd.

have any BTF administrators (or whatever you call 'em

They are called Professor Hats Sen. McCarthy.

That's not censorship. It's giving the readers a choice.


And editing other people's post, that's just fun and games. We should have been able to tell by the context of the comments, instead of the exact words. Period.

And even though their sport hadn't gotten around to being able to test for them or prohibit them, in part because of union recalcitrance.

If Bowie Kuhn hadn't tried to play games, there would have been drug testing in the books for 20 years now.

Biscuit pants:That's what this site is missing, censorship! I say we run an internet pole on who should go.

So, can I assume from this that you, at least, did not check out the "block user" feature function on the projo web-board (since you apparently are unaware how it works)?

On the projo board, posters are blocked by individuals (analogous to how a killfile on usenet boards). If you didn't want to bother with my posts, but someone else did, you wouldn't be preventing them from reading my posts, you'd just be avoiding them yourself. Perhaps your definition differs from my own, but I would not call it censorship. (It may be no less heinous in your opinion -- then again, it may be fine -- but I'd still guess that it's not what is commonly understood to be censorship).

Given the way this particular site works, I'm not sure projo's "block user" feature would be practical or preferable here. I was just asking if it had ever been considered/looked into.

Good point. That settles the argument that has gone on on Primer for about four years now. Some guy named "SugarBear Blanks" says that "there's absolutely no comparison." Guess that's that. We don't have to discuss it anymore

How are they comparable?

Biscuit pants:That's what this site is missing, censorship! I say we run an internet pole on who should go.

So, can I assume from this that you, at least, did not check out the "block user" feature function on the projo web-board (since you apparently are unaware how it works)?

On the projo board, posters are blocked by individuals (analogous to how a killfile on usenet boards). If you didn't want to bother with my posts, but someone else did, you wouldn't be preventing them from reading my posts, you'd just be avoiding them yourself. Perhaps your definition differs from my own, but I would not call that censorship. (It may be no less heinous in your opinion -- then again, it may be perfectly fine -- but I'd still guess that it's not what is commonly understood to be censorship).

Given the way this particular site works, I'm not sure projo's "block user" feature would be practical or preferable here. I was just asking if it had ever been considered/looked into.

They are called Professor Hats Sen. McCarthy.

And I still want mine. I'm an admin, I'm better than you people, dammit! Better than you!

To quote the fan taunt, "Scoreboard." Or, in this case, "Turnstiles." As I've said many times, when fans stop showing up, that will show they care.

I was involved, peripherally, in a discussion of this issue with Backlasher, Dave (not Nieporent, or TraderDave, just a very insightful poster who goes by Dave) and may be one of the "agnostics" that Backlasher referred to earlier.

I agree with what Nieporent said above to a point, except to add the phrase "how much" after "show" in his sentence. I think that most people wish ballplayers wouldn't use PEDs and a lot of people have always detested Barry Bonds and have more reason to now.

As for this year, I think the Giants will be the biggest road draw in baseball, other than the Yankees and Red Sox, when Bonds is playing. Some people may buy tickets just to boo him. One could argue that is a form of "caring" but I think most people are aware that the most powerful vote is with your feet. My father, as I said, did not renew his Padres tickets after having attended 40 games a year since '74, because of issues related to the ballpark funding/politics.

Late response to a dormant tangent:

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.

Not only is there not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, there is no evidence published in peer-reviewed journals to support the claim that hGH improves vision. There is considerable preclinical evidence to suggest that the opposite hypothesis is true, that hGH can impair visual acuity. The evidence is by no means conclusive, and obviously there are differences between human eyes and those of other mammals. I would not assert that exogenous hGH impairs human vision. But if I were designing a study, there would be enough circumstantial evidence for me to consider that a hypothesis worthy of testing.

Now revisit your original statement: Improved eyesight is a known effect of taking Human Growth Hormone. That doesn't sound like a hypothesis; it sounds like a statement supported by the weight of factual evidence. Do you stand behind it?

And even though their sport hadn't gotten around to being able to test for them or prohibit them, in part because of union recalcitrance.

Recalcitrance? Steroids weren't even on the table in 1998. The union wasn't fighting an effort by MLB to test players back then.

"Expunging" his records is that it can mean one of two things:
1) We actually go back and edit the box scores, claim he didn't hit those home runs.
2) We edit the "record books" so that Bonds isn't listed.

The first makes no sense because baseball is an accounting. If Bonds didn't hit the home runs, he didn't get the RBI, but the runs scored. Everything has to balance out.

The second, while mathematically feasible, implies that there's some sort of "official" record. But Bonds hit 73 HRs. That's the only "official" thing. You can generate a single season list and then White-out Bonds' name if you choose. You can lobby MLB to do that. But that doesn't change the fact that he did, and that someone else can generate just as "official" a list showing him up top. A player can be expelled from the Hall or have an award taken away, but what he actually did remains.

But its more fun for people to regurgitate what they read as an undergraduate under the pretense of being an authority.

Usually, they have undergraduates read what the authorities write, don't they? Wouldn't telling you what a textbook said be referencing the opinion of an authority?

There's absolutely no comparison between greenies and steroids and it's silly to try to compare them. It's like saying Red Bull is a PED.

No, it's not like that at all. In the Mike Schmidt greenie thread, CBW admitted trying greenies and said it was nothing like any stimulant he'd tried before.

He's claimed to be what his name says he is in numerous past threads.

an idiot, you mean?

67. Backlasher: They are called Professor Hats Sen. McCarthy.

This came in apparent reply to something I wrote. I'm sure I'm being dense here, but I'm not sure I understand the point you're making -- would you mind clarifying? Are you confusing me for someone else?

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.

A Marathon is a long-distance running race on a specific course of a specific length. Shortcuts are a violation of the rules -- you've gone off course. Motorized transportation is a violation of the rules -- you're travelling the course by means other than running. Break the rules, you're disqualified -- if you're disqualified, you officially did not participate.

Yes, but I believe Larry's point was that in 1992, there were rules that barred what Michigan was doing (and there were rules in 1988 prohibiting what Ben Johnson did). OTOH, there was nothing in MLB that prohibited what Bonds may have done in 1998 and the policies that exist today shouldn't be applied retroactively

And as I wrote, his records wouldn't be expunged because of retroactive application of a rule; they would be expunged for using performance enhancing drugs which obviously enhanced his performance. Which is, as I wrote, the essence of why we expunge the records of cheaters, even if we don't catch them right away. And even though their sport hadn't gotten around to being able to test for them or prohibit them, in part because of union recalcitrance.

You don't seem to understand what a record book is. It's a very literal thing: a record of things that happened. To not be in the record book, it needs to not have happened. Michigan vacated the seasons they were in violation of the rules, they officially didn't happen. Ben Johnson was disqualified from the 100m in Seoul. He officially wasn't in the race.

Michigan didn't recieve NCAA sanctions because what they did was immoral, they recieved them because they were in violation of the rules. Johnson was in violation of the rules.

In baseball, there are rules against drug use, but conviction is dependent on a positive drug test. By rule. Jason Giambi could have publically confessed his steroid use and he wouldn't have been suspended, because a public confession isn't agains the rules. No positive test, no supension.

Baseball has specific rules regarding the invalidation of events, that being that the first pitch of the next PA sets the previous event in stone, even if it's in blatant violation of the rules, unless the game was protested before the pitch and the league upholds the protest. To expunge a record you need to retroactively change the rules.

Finally, the MLBPA wasn't the reason there was no mandatory testing in MLB before the 2002 CBA, the reason is that nobody really cared. MLB wasn't bringing it to the table.

How are they comparable?

We've been debating this issue for years now. Steroids and amphetamines are comparable in at least the following ways:

1. Both are illegal.
2. Both were and probably still are used by MLB players despite their illegality.
3. Both can have significant adverse health effects.
4. Both enhance performance.
5. Both were included as "drugs of abuse" under MLB's anti-drug policy prior to 2003.

Good point. That settles the argument that has gone on on Primer for about four years now. Some guy named "SugarBear Blanks" says that "there's absolutely no comparison." Guess that's that. We don't have to discuss it anymore.


The argument that they're comparable is facetious, and done generally by those who are trying to defend the use of steroids or minimize its impact on the game. It's like saying electricity and egomania are the same thing because they both start with "e."

There are superficial similarities between the two that biased people have, I've read, tried to latch on to.

Do greenies make you hit a baseball farther everything else being equal? Is there any greenie user in baseball history who had hit one ball over 450 feet before age 36 and 25-30 after the age of 36? Is there ANY training or nutritional regimen of any kind, legal or illegal, that has had those kind of effects? Ever.

That's what Bonds has done with steroids. Break down a home run into its component parts and all it is is hitting a baseball a sufficient distance to clear a fence at another distance. Steroids have clearly made Bonds (and Sosa and McGuire) able to hit a baseball further everything else being equal. Greenies simply don't have that obvious effect, no matter what has been written on this board.

I'm an admin, I'm better than you people, dammit! Better than you!


Did you say "farting"? I hear that can get you defrocked.

Apparently, per the article "The Documentation" at the link, Anderson's documents contain notations under the heading "BLB 2003" with dates and cities of Giants road games, along with notations (allegedly) recording corresponding drug intake.

I know; for a change I RTFA (although not the book excerpt). But I was questioning the nature of those "notations." (Not "challenging" -- just "questioning." I want to know whether they're unambiguous, slightly ambiguous, or completely obscure such that we have to rely on the assertions of one person to decipher them.)


SugarBear:

How are they comparable?

How are they not? Illegal substances which players take to enhance performance. Because you think that the effect of one is bigger than the other? (Even if that's the case, and it's not exactly firmly established that it is, that doesn't mean that they aren't comparable; that simply means one is more impactful than the other.)

The attendance that increased after MLB addressed the steroid issue?

Attendance was down collectively in MLB this year, except for one franchise: the Exposenationals, whose attendance increased by more than the rest of the league's attendance declined. Somehow I don't think you can argue that this franchise's increase was tied to steroid testing.

We've been debating this issue for years now. Steroids and amphetamines are comparable in at least the following ways:

1. Both are illegal.
2. Both were and probably still are used by MLB players despite their illegality.
3. Both can have significant adverse health effects.
4. Both enhance performance.
5. Both were included as "drugs of abuse" under MLB's anti-drug policy prior to 2003.

As I've said, there are superficial similarities, as your list shows. All but number four have nothing to do with the issue at hand. As to number four, the performance enhancements of steroids dwarf the performance enhancements of greenies which are diffuse and pertain also to activities having nothing to do with athletics. Greenies helped baseball players get through a long season much as caffeine helps an office worker stay alert through a long and tedious day when he hasn't slept much the night before. Big deal.

Steroids allow a person to hit a baseball further and thus to hit more home runs than he otherwise would. Yes, a guy may hit a home run he wouldn't have otherwise hit because he's more awake, but that effect is negligible and an indirect effect, at best. The impact on fair competition is dwarfed by the impact of steroids.

Do greenies make you hit a baseball farther everything else being equal? Is there any greenie user in baseball history who had hit one ball over 450 feet before age 36 and 25-30 after the age of 36? Is there ANY training or nutritional regimen of any kind, legal or illegal, that has had those kind of effects? Ever.

I didn't know that raw power was the only way to cheat with drugs.

I know of one admitted amphetamine abuser that managed to hang on into his mid-40s, collecting 4256 hits. No other training or nutritional regiment of any kind, legal or illegal, has had those kind of effects. Ever.

All I know is that Rose, Schmidt, Mays, Stargell, and even maybe Aaron (if Bruce Jenkins is to be believed) all took drugs that are and were illegal that are now banned by baseball and practically every other athletic organization in the world in part because of performance-enhancing reasons. If you can seriously equate amphetamines to Red Bull, you're as deluded as someone who calls steroids simply an extra-awesome steak.

Greenies helped baseball players get through a long season much as caffeine helps an office worker stay alert through a long and tedious day when he hasn't slept much the night before. Big deal.

Getting through the season is part of performance. This argument is a rich, creamery, crock of ####. I might as well say that

"Steroids helped baseball players through a long workout much as caffeine helps an office worker stay alert through a long and tedious day when he hasn't slept much the night before. Big deal."

Stand tall, Barry. We at BTF trust you and give you our whole-hearted support and will rally around you when you nobly smash the record of the great white supremacist Ruth. We know a Stalinist show trial when we see it.

Don't worry, if we need any Stalinist show trials, we'll contact one of the members of the so-called "union" to run it.

I didn't know that raw power was the only way to cheat with drugs.


I had no idea of the power of my keyboard until today either.

Somehow I don't think you can argue that this franchise's increase was tied to steroid testing.

I don't think you can make an argument about attendance in any way. There was an epidemic problem in the game of baseball. The fans AND players voiced their displeasure. MLB dealt with it.

And now we are finding out what people want to do about the cheaters that spoiled everything for everybody. It sounds like the People want Blood. Well, even I don't agree with that.

It hasn't mattered how you have phrased the question. It hasn't matter who has conducted the poll. It hasn't matter where you are getting your info. The voice of the people has been the same.

Now maybe you can read a couple of Internet blogs tightly controlled by people who admit they will censor posts. Maybe you can cover up the voice of the people by putting in an ignore feature. But this is what people think.

All I know is that Rose, Schmidt, Mays, Stargell, and even maybe Aaron (if Bruce Jenkins is to be believed) all took drugs that are and were illegal that are now banned by baseball and practically every other athletic organization in the world in part because of performance-enhancing reasons.

Maybe I missed a good thread. All I read about Schmidt was that he tried it and regretted the decision. I heard the same about Wally Joyner and 'roids. And neither of them are in the same class of cheating, and neither of them are in the same class of effects as the person who fueld this thread.

you're as deluded as someone who calls steroids simply an extra-awesome steak.

TOS, TOS, TOS. You see, I haven't even gone even close to that far, and from your own posts you get whiny emails and posts saying my keyboard is emitting fanboy kryptonite, and newbies stumping for an ignore feature.

Don't worry, if we need any Stalinist show trials, we'll contact one of the members of the so-called "union" to run it.


You got the wrong group Hoss. You just need to put one of those Instant Polls on the sideboard so the troops can vote us off the island.

I think we were right in our suspicions and indictments. And Andy seems quite merciful in his sentencing compared to most of the baseball loving free world.

All I read about Schmidt was that he tried it and regretted the decision.

Schmidt can say he simply "tried it," but the doctor who got busted in the early 80s for providing the Phillies with all the greenies they could eat would say differently.

You see, I haven't even gone even close to that far, and from your own posts you get whiny emails and posts saying my keyboard is emitting fanboy kryptonite, and newbies stumping for an ignore feature.

Oh, you've gone way farther. Bob Machemer ain't a newbie - I've been reading his posts for a dozen years.

The argument that [steroids and amphetamines are] comparable is facetious, and done generally by those who are trying to defend the use of steroids or minimize its impact on the game. It's like saying electricity and egomania are the same thing because they both start with "e."

There are superficial similarities between the two that biased people have, I've read, tried to latch on to.

Tell that to WADA and to the IOC, which bans both.

I think we were right in our suspicions and indictments.

Again, get over yourself. You turned out to be right, you didn't cure cancer.

I think it's hilarious to see the Bonds-supporters retreating to the ledge, disputing the validity of internet polls.

If you seriously think internet polls have any validity, you need to throw out every claim of simply following the evidence you've ever made.

While no doubt, the public dislikes Bonds and probably feels similarly to how the results turned out, that the internet poll indicates it isn't evidence.

Tell that to WADA and to the IOC, which bans both.

Apparently, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic Committee are in on the plot to validate steroids and smear amphetamines, no doubt at the behest of bribes by Red Bull, which market a product that is like, totally just, like, the same as amphetamiens.

Do greenies make you hit a baseball farther everything else being equal? Is there any greenie user in baseball history who had hit one ball over 450 feet before age 36 and 25-30 after the age of 36? Is there ANY training or nutritional regimen of any kind, legal or illegal, that has had those kind of effects? Ever.

That's what Bonds has done with steroids. Break down a home run into its component parts and all it is is hitting a baseball a sufficient distance to clear a fence at another distance. Steroids have clearly made Bonds (and Sosa and McGuire) able to hit a baseball further everything else being equal. Greenies simply don't have that obvious effect, no matter what has been written on this board.

The contradictory assumptions of these two paragraphs boggles the mind. Considering your willingness to assume -- in the absence of any proof -- that steroids cause a significant improvement in baseball performance, how can you be so unwilling to even consider that amphetamines may also improve performance?

As for your hyperbole, I'm curious to know what person -- clean or otherwise -- had a career (or yearly) HR total of 1 before age 36 and 25-30 after then.

I think it's hilarious to see the Bonds-supporters retreating to the ledge, disputing the validity of internet polls.

kevin, come the #### on. No one's making the case that internet polls aren't valid, or arguing that they aren't, or giving their opinion on the matter.

Their lack of validity is a fact, and it's a pretty elementary notion of polling.

I'm not saying that people don't think the way this internet "poll" says they do. I'm not saying that people do think that way, either. I'm just saying that an internet poll isn't evidentiary.

SugarBear Blanks isn't citing home run count, but the "long home run" count that one of the media places cited recently. Of course, since the data doesn't exist elsewhere and for other players, he's simply making up an argument he cannot possibly know to be true.

As for your hyperbole, I'm curious to know what person -- clean or otherwise -- had a career (or yearly) HR total of 1 before age 36 and 25-30 after then.

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.

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.

You turned out to be right, you didn't cure cancer.


That's kevin's domain. I'll just get equity for those who got it because somebody else abused their power.

But since we don't have a thread dedicated to "JAMA: CURES FOR CANCER" up yet; I think the FUD attackes on evidence by those that not only missed the boat, but missed the ocean are pretty topical.

If you want to berate me for not curing cancer, at least wait until we put up Oncoloblog. Because that's one heck of a standard; never say "fart" and cure cancer. Then you can roam about and call people idiots without any cashiering from the Powers that Be.