Barry Hits #756!

[Olympic Fan]

Count me among those who thinks Bonds is a cheater. I am disgusted that he holds the record.

As to the various "defenses" offered by his defenders:

1 -- He never tested positive for steroids.
True, he never tested positive for steroids. But you ignore the fact that baseball didn't test for steroids until very, very recently. Anyone who follows the steroid issue in other sports (for instance, bike racing) knows that there's an ongoing chemical war between the abusers and the testers and that the users are usually ahead in finding ways to mask their useage. If Bonds used, his heavy useage came when baseball wasn't testing. When the tests finally did come -- long after Bonds juiced up -- it would not have been hard for him to stop using and avoid detection.

2 -- Baseball didn't ban steroids until long after he was using.
Again, true, but irrelevent ... steroid use without a perscription was and is illegal. There's no baseball rule I know of that says you can't take a gun on the field and shoot any runner who tries to score. Hey, my ERA is 0.00 and I didn't break any baseball rules? So I'm the greatest pitcher of all time, right!

3 -- Everybody in that era did it.
That's an excuse? Anybody who has had kids has to understand what a weak defense that is. Yeah, McGwire, Sosa, Palmero, Caminitti, Canseco, Giambi and probably Clemens also juiced up. So did dozens of others. Writers have condemned them too -- McGwire's failure to win election to the hall of fame on the first ballot was a pretty big slap in his steroid-bloated face.
(And, PS, guys we KNOW used steroids -- Canseco and Caminitti for two -- never tested positive either. Neither did Giambi, who has all but admitted his useage too).

4 -- It's baseball's fault for not addressing to issue.
Absolutely true -- although I don't see how that exonerates Bonds or any of the other users. The baseball establishment has tried to ignore this issue for years -- just as it did its best to sweep gambling under the rug in the days before the Black Sox scandal. But just because baseball refused to stamp out an obvious fixer such as Hal Chase doesn't mean that Cicotte, Gandil and Jackson should have gotten a pass. And just because Selig and his cronies were more interested in crushing the players' union and implementing a socialist financial structure to baseball than keeping the game clean doesn't mean that Bonds, Sosa, Giambi and company deserve a pass.

5 -- There's no PROOF than Bonds used steroids.
No, and for the first 20 years that Pete Rose was banned for baseball there was no proof that he bet on baseball. There was, however, strong evidence that all but his most irrational defenders could see. There was no proof that any of the Black Sox threw the world series -- proof in the sense that it was strong enough to stand up in a court of law (they were, in fact, acquitted by a Chicago jury).
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard in this country in criminal cases. Other American courts require a different standard -- the verdit is determined by the perponderance of the evidence (which is why OJ was found not guilty in a criminal court and yet was found responsible for the death of two people in a civil court).
In athletics, the establishment has always acted quickly to maintain the integrity of the game. So far, there's no PROOF Michael Vick nor Michael Tauiliili did anything wrong -- but neither will be playing football this fall. Athletes are suspended all the time for far less evidence -- even evidence short of proof -- than we have for Bonds.
(Yes, sometimes that turns out to be wrong -- the Duke lax case for example. But while there is much that the Duke administration did that some of us can take issue with, suspending the three players when they were charged with a felony was a reasonable step).

I think the evidence is convincing that Bonds juiced up and that the steroids helped what was a very good pre-steroid player into what one poster called "the best player of our time."

I think he's a cheat and I refuse to celebrate his tainted achievement.

If you feel differently, that's your right ...

[Dukerati]

My feeling on his home run is this: *********************

Anyone hear Bob Costas' take on Bonds? He states the case much better than I ever could but the fact is, Bonds would not have come close to the record had he not taken steroids. Regardless of what every other player did, Bonds broke a hallowed record in baseball by cheating. Maybe he cheated better than everyone else and maybe he was already better than everyone else before the cheating, but people like their heroes and record-holders to be clean, likeable people. Barry Bonds is neither.

As for the bias vs non-bias in Game of Shadows, I read it and found the case very convincing. I am not going to say it was completely unbiased, because it wasn't, but it is more in the writing style and presentation rather than actual misrepresentations. I find it telling that most of the people who are Bonds apologists have (shockingly) not read the book. You can not disparage a book you have not read or base your opinion off second-hand accounts. Point to specific examples of bias when making your arguments. The book is full of facts. Yep, gloriously unbiased facts. If the book was so biased and untrue, you can bet Bonds would have sued for slander and libel. It has irrepairably damaged his reputation and put him under a tremendous amount of scrutiny. The simple fact is, he has no case. The authors did their research (and pretty exhaustive research at that) and presented a well laid-out case.

The people who love Bonds will either look the other way or just categorically deny Bonds used steroids without a positive steroid test or actual footage of him injecting himself. If you needed a smoking gun for every case, our legal system and society would fall apart. The evidence STRONGLY suggests he is guilty. If you had to make a life-or-death decision on whether or not he is guilty, I'd like to see the people lining up on the non-guilty side.

[Duvall]

steven52682, I sure hope you are not serving on a jury in which I am the defendant. In your book I'd be guilty. And I haven't even committed a crime!

This is not a jury, and neither Bonds nor you is a defendant. We are merely trying to assess the facts, and under the facts as presented, Bonds' extensive and documented relationship with a laboratory found to have created and provided performance-enhancing substances is enough for a reasonable person to conclude that Bonds probably violated baseball's explicit prohibition against using such substances.

The weight given such a conclusion in assessing Bonds' accomplishments is, of course, left to the individual.

[captmojo]

Olympic fan, well said.

Didn't "Hammerin Hank" show what class is all about last night?

[TillyGalore]

This is not a jury, and neither Bonds nor you is a defendant. We are merely trying to assess the facts, and under the facts as presented, Bonds' extensive and documented relationship with a laboratory found to have created and provided performance-enhancing substances is enough for a reasonable person to conclude that Bonds probably violated baseball's explicit prohibition against using such substances.

The weight given such a conclusion is assessing Bonds' accomplishments is, of course, left to the individual.

He was relying on the court of public opinion. We all know the court of public opinion can be wrong. Case in point the lacrosse scandal.

We as a society jump to conclusions, we need answers now we don't wait for facts to come in. As is my interpretation of what he wrote. Thus he would find me guilty without even hearing my side of the story.

The fact is we all speculate about Bonds, nothing has really been proven. And one book, which people have noted was biased, does not prove anything. Someone could take the very same facts and spin them another way.

Did Bonds take steroids? It is highly likely that he did, but I can't prove it and I'm not going to come out and say whether or not he did because we don't have the whole story.

If there is one thing I've learned in life, it's that there is always one side to a story. I'd like to think I will hear all sides and then make a determination. There are a lot of people that only want to hear one side and use everything they can find to back it up.

[DevilWolf]

Aaron was a cheater.

[Dukiedevil]

yes - but Tony Gwynn's uniform size got bigger in a way that many who have come before him got bigger.

Gwynn's head did not grow after the age of 35

Nor did his feet get bigger after the age of 35.

Technically, I doubt we know this since I very much doubt anyone would have had any interest in that fact if his feet or head did grow.

and if you have Game of Shadows you might see why I think it rings true. The level of detail is impecable. Bonds is the first person ever to increase his production the way that he did after the age of 35. If you can show me any other example from anywhere else in history where an individual after the age of 35 had the kind of body change Bonds did naturally and in the normal course, where there head and feet grew I will be more willing to accept Barry Bonds.

You are right. No one else in history increased their level of production after the age of 35 the way he did. That shouldn't make what Bonds did any less amazing unless you think that Bonds is the only guy over the age 35 who ever took steroids.

[g_olaf]

My feeling on his home run is this: *********************

Anyone hear Bob Costas' take on Bonds? He states the case much better than I ever could but the fact is, Bonds would not have come close to the record had he not taken steroids.

I would dispute this assertion. Barry could have gotten traded to an AL team, played DH. He'd have played every game for the last several seasons, giving him another 100-200 plate appearances a season. As a DH, he wouldn't have been injured in 2005, plus there is no reason to think that he won't be able to DH for another 4-5 seasons. At 30-40 HRs per season, during the 'tainted' era and 20-30 since, he'd still have hit the record, probably in 2009.

Anyway, Bob Costas is a midget who knows nothing about baseball.

[g_olaf]

steroid use without a perscription was and is illegal.

So, if he had done it with a prescription you'd be OK?

[cato]

He was relying on the court of public opinion. We all know the court of public opinion can be wrong. Case in point the lacrosse scandal.

Last time I checked, public opinion seems to be that the Duke lacrosse players were innocent, and that Nifong railroaded them.

We as a society jump to conclusions, we need answers now we don't wait for facts to come in. As is my interpretation of what he wrote. Thus he would find me guilty without even hearing my side of the story.

You should probably reread what he wrote.

Did Bonds take steroids? It is highly likely that he did, but I can't prove it and I'm not going to come out and say whether or not he did because we don't have the whole story.

I don't understand your point here. You seem to be saying that you think Bonds probably took steriods, but you don't want to say it.

If there is one thing I've learned in life, it's that there is always one side to a story. I'd like to think I will hear all sides and then make a determination. There are a lot of people that only want to hear one side and use everything they can find to back it up.

Meh. If there are two sides, let's hear them. Again, let's go back to the Duke lacrosse case. The defendants immediately began presenting evidence that they did not commit the crimes they were accused of. Over time, it became clear that, in all likelihood, they were innocent -- because they came out and told their story. If Bonds didn't cheat, let him come out and tell his story. As it is, he seems content to simply deny allegations, and play victim. Read into that what you will.

[captmojo]

The spirit of Christmas gave the Grinch the strength of ten Grinches, plus two.

[EarlJam]

There's no baseball rule I know of that says you can't take a gun on the field and shoot any runner who tries to score.

I'd saw my right arm off to see that happen! Awesome!

"Here's the 2-2 pitch! Jones lines the pitch to right field and it's in for a hit! Diaz rounds third and will try to score! Here's the throw to the plate! Martinez reaches for the 9mm glock. [blam!...blam! blam! blam! blam!].......AND Diaz is down and appears to be dead. Did he make it to plate? No! The Mets win! The Mets win!"

[Channing]

TG - i assure you, on a jury I would change my thinking. there would be a whole different responsibility on my shoulders in a criminal case, and the burden would be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it were a civil case the burden would either be by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.

I have pointed out the head size, jersey size, and foot size as evidence of steroid use. If anyone can provide me one credible medical explanation for the occurence of all three, like i said, I will back off on Bonds. I have looked, I have tried to search the archives of the NEJM and have found nothing. I have pointed out the inconsistencies in claiming he "didnt know what he was taking." If someone can provide contrary facts I would love to consider them, but nobody has provided me with anything except "you are just spinning the facts, I could do the same thing."

[Olympic Fan]

So, if he had done it with a prescription you'd be OK?

Steroids have a valid place in certain medical treatments and I have no problem with it when used properly -- under a doctor's supervision.

If Bonds had a valid medical reason for taking steroids during the period when it was not against baseball rules and he legally obtained the steroids via a doctor's prescription, then, yes, I'd be okay with it. Just be sure you understand the word "valid" -- there are rogue doctors out there who perscribe certain pills ("Perk" for one) to people who pay them enough.

But your point is moot -- Bonds didn't have a valid medical reason and he didn't have a prescription (or we'd heard about it by now).

He was cheating. Period.

[murpho]

Wish I had his rookie card

[g_olaf]

He was cheating. Period.

How do you feel about McGwire, who admitted using androstenedione, which was legal in the US at the time (although banned by the IOC and the NFL). Is that cheating, because its a steroid? or is it OK? What about other legally obtained dietary supplements? How about nicotine? that's a performance enhancing drug that is probably more dangerous than steroids... isn't that cheating? should we ban its use? Caffeine? Where do you draw the line on what's cheating and what isn't.

Personally, I'd say its cheating if someone used a substance that was expressly prohibited by the organization (MLB). Presuming that Bonds took steroids, it is hard for me to call it cheating when, (a) it wasn't prohibited by baseball, (b) estimates of anywhere up to 50%-85% of MLB players were doing it, and (c) everyone knew.

[Duvall]

Personally, I'd say its cheating if someone used a substance that was expressly prohibited by the organization (MLB). Presuming that Bonds took steroids, it is hard for me to call it cheating when, (a) it wasn't prohibited by baseball, (b) estimates of anywhere up to 50%-85% of MLB players were doing it, and (c) everyone knew.

Steroids have been prohibited in baseball since 1991.

[g_olaf]

Steroids have been prohibited in baseball since 1991.

Thanks, I stand corrected:

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual did not have a prescription.

Honestly, why didn't they start testing for steroids back then?

[JasonEvans]

My 8 and 10 year old sons came into my bedroom this morning and we were all watching Sportscenter together. They watched some of the Bonds stuff and then my 10-year-old said, "can we change the channel? I am sick of watching a cheater." Usually I enjoy sharing great sports moments with my kids. I realized that this time we were sharing a tragedy.

The really sad thing is that if Barry had just let the 'roid lunatics do their thing and he had not joined the cause the only debate about him today would be over whether he was the greatest player of all time. He was on his way to making a legitimate claim to that title... but McGuire and Sosa got in the way.

Barry saw all the love and praise heaped upon those two guys-- guys he knew were juiced to the gills-- and he decided it was not fair. He knew he was a far better player than either of them and if it just took a little juice to get there, so what?!

And that is how a guy who was routinely hitting 38-45 homers a season jumped to 73 one year.

I truly think that if Barry had not juiced he'd be right around 700 homers right now... maybe a little more. He'd still be hitting homers at about a 30/season clip and we'd be wondering if he might hang around a year or two more and pass The Hammer. It would have been great! We would all be wondering if we were looking at the first unanimous Hall of Famer.

Instead, we get this bastardized version of Barry Bonds-- the one so huge that he overshadows all the greatness that Barry showed us prior to 2001. It is just sad.

Prior to turning 35, Barry Bonds won 3 MVP awards and finished in the top 5 in the MPVO voting 5 other times. That's sick!! He was a Gold Glover and a Silver Slugger winner almost every year. He was in the top 5 in the NL in homers 7 out of 8 years from 1990 to 1997. We are talking about a guy who was having a better career than Mickey Mantle!!!

And he ruined it... he tainted it. Isn't it pathetic that we have to have this debate? It is just wrong!! We are not talking about someone who never would have made it without the drugs-- we are talking about arguably the greatest ever who wanted even more than that. Again, how sad...

The irony to me is that I think Barry went to the juice because he wanted to be loved the way Mcguire and Sosa were. Instead, he has brought more scorn and anger and hatred down upon himself than he ever could of by merely being a jerk to the media, his teammates, and the fans.

--Jason "a piece of me feels sorry for him" Evans

[DevilWolf]

"They watched some of the Bonds stuff and then my 10-year-old said, "can we change the channel? I am sick of watching a cheater."

Then, in my opinion, it wasn't Bonds or baseball that stole your son's experience of witnessing history, it was you and the sportswriters who have spoon-fed your 10 year old the idea that Bonds is a "bad guy". If your kid doesn't like cheaters, don't let him watch baseball at all. Steroids are all well and good as long as the players are hitting .285 with 21 HR. Baseball is a wonderful game. But as soon as one guy stands out and does something historic, let's heap the blame on him and turn him into a cheater. Don't hate the player, hate the game. MLB did this. And when you take all of it away, all that's left is a "tainted" record because Bonds isn't a media darling. Did he take steroids? I can buy that accusation. But don't tell me that 8 out of 10 pitchers he made look foolish during his career weren't doing the same thing.

How do your kids feel about Brett Farve? I bet they think he's a prototypical tough guy who will play through anything, don't they? Or maybe they're Panthers fans who love Julius Peppers.