Barry Bonds thread (merged)

[BawLa]

If this guy was trying to persuade a couple borderline-Bonds-supporters to his pathetic rally cry then he blew it from the get-go. Comparing Barry Bonds to O.J. Simpson is as wrong as it is silly, no matter how much you "loathe" him. He carefully (or colorfully) disguises the comparison as a race issue, which has been brought up recently, but in more tasteful ways.

Ignoring his blasphemous introduction I finally found his point, that people generally empathize with others of their own race. Well there is no denying that.

Then he dances a racial line in his example of a typical Bonds hater, and a typical Bonds supporter. And as he finishes his verbal vomit he says 3 more things that I found totally wrong. First he tries to convince the reader that "extreme prejudice" is somehow okay. Then he tries to justify his prejudice by saying he's just human (And that even almost suggests that people who don't see things his way are inhumane). And the icing on the cake was when he concluded with an AMEN which just feeds into the signature I've been using for a while now.

All in all, this reaction is to be expected. The fact is that once Barry hits his NEXT home run, he will officially be single digits away from tying the record, and that moment will simultaneously symbolize the countdown for all the haters. It will signify their last triumphant moments to hate and despise and whatever because once he passes Hank it's over.






Wait, who am I kidding, it will never end.

 

[NoBonus]

which just feeds into the signature I've been using for a while now.

The Catholic church and the French monarchy are after Bonds?

 

[BawLa]

I mean no offense whatsoever, but your comment comes off as incredibly hypocritical to me. Shilling apologized; and he did so pretty quickly after the whole mess. You have mentioned many times you think people should be more accepting and forgiving. On one hand, you want people with my opinion to get it over it and accept that people are human and make mistakes, and that Bonds MAY have made a mistake in the past. So why is it Shilling's apology isn't enough and he has to do more?

You're right, it was hypocritical. Incredibly? I think that is a bit extreme, but whatever. Frankly I don't think Schilling would have apologized if his lawyer and/or coach didn't urge him to. To me, if it were truly sincere, he would have apologized directly to the media, not tipping them to go look at a statement he realeased on his blog. For someone that loves to get his nose in the media, he could've done it face to face. Like I said before, it was nice but had he done it directly to the media, face-to-face, then I would've lost zero respect for him. That is my opinion and since I do not have definitive proof for all of it, I need to just deal with it. Initially I thought it was so over-the-top to say what he said in public that my emotion dominated my logic. I'm over it now. But if magically somehow Boston's starting rotation gets mixed up then I would relish the opportunity of seeing Barry face-off with Curt. It would be fun to see even without this recent incident.

 

[slugking50]

The Catholic church and the French monarchy are after Bonds?

lol... awesome.


Its a C-O-N-spiracy against Bonds and everybody in the media is in on it. Appearently you didn't get the memo. Neither did i though because I thought it was the Russian Oil Barons.

 

[BawLa]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/13/SPGCPPQ6EJ1.DTL

Soon steroids will eclipse feel-good story of Warriors


Gwen Knapp
Sunday, May 13, 2007

Enjoy the Warriors while you can. They are a buffer, almost a mirage, a feel-good story that will quickly segue into the Summer of Cynicism. The schedule isn't finalized yet, but spring training starts Monday, when Floyd Landis' arbitration hearing opens in Malibu.

Barry Bonds' home-run chase will be at the heart of it all, dividing people more bitterly than electoral politics. Last week's ABC/ESPN poll, which showed that his support was divided along racial lines and that 52 percent of all respondents were rooting against him, cued a chorus of over-simplifiers. Bigoted player-hater or unscrupulous steroid enabler? Choose a side, and don't bother to shake the opponent's hand.

Hank Aaron tried to stay on the sidelines, and look what happened to him. Since he said last month that he would not be present for No. 756, citing his reluctance to board planes at age 73, he has been called a coward, a bitter old man and, in a particularly vile bit of code language, a humble southerner who has made himself palatable to white fans.

It's bad enough that these critics forget what Aaron endured when he took the home-run record from Babe Ruth 33 years ago, but they couldn't even be bothered to look back three years and see Aaron pulling for Bonds and defending him when people brought up the fact that his trainer had been indicted for distributing steroids. (Aaron also said then that he didn't want to travel.)

But as more information about Bonds came out of the BALCO investigation, Aaron very quietly withdrew his support, avoiding media inquiries on the topic. When he broke the silence to reiterate that he wouldn't try to see the record-breaker, he added a new reason alongside his age: a desire to be at peace and not answer a bunch of questions.

There won't be much peace in the coming weeks, unless those who doubt Bonds decide to censor themselves. But looking away from performance-enhancing drugs is just another form of cynicism, a ripple effect of Major League Baseball's longstanding willful ignorance.

Landis' case will play out in the meantime, a reminder that doping has ensnared every sport and athletes of every race. The Mennonite-reared cyclist, about as wide as the barrel of Bonds' bat, is appealing his positive test for synthetic testosterone from last year's Tour de France. He has assembled a legal defense team and public-relations machinery that make Bonds' resources look puny.

Landis has attacked the French lab that did the testing, asserting that it committed an array of technical errors and ethical lapses. He has also gone after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, most recently by saying that the agency -- which will defend the two-year suspension that Landis faces -- offered to cut him a deal if he implicated former teammate Lance Armstrong in doping violations. The point of this revelation is unclear.

USADA does offer shorter bans for additional information about doping, but why target Armstrong now? If unethical doping agencies, working with corrupt labs, wanted to nail Armstrong, they could have jimmied up the necessary test results when he was still competing. They wouldn't have needed Landis as a middleman.

But that's been the essence of Landis' defense -- throw a pot of pasta at the wall and see what sticks. Landis has complained several times that he has fewer rights than a criminal defendant. He should probably be grateful that he lives here, and not overseas. Operation Puerto, a police inquiry based on a raid of a Madrid medical lab, is European's cycling equivalent of BALCO, and it has been much, much tougher on the athletes.

Former Tour de France champion Jan Ullrich's Swiss home was raided while he was on his honeymoon. Prosecutors in Italy are investigating former Discovery rider Ivan Basso, who recently admitted that his blood had been stored in the Madrid lab, awaiting re-transfusion. The evidence against him was pretty damning. Investigators found bags of blood marked as "Birillo,'' the name of Basso's dog.

Does USADA have anything that compelling on Landis? For the next 10 days, the agency and Landis will both be on trial. The arbitration will be open to the media, a first in this country, allowing for unprecedented scrutiny. Plans to send a live feed out over the Web are in the works.

Will sports fans pay attention, or keep their focus solely on Bonds, preferring to argue about his personality and whether Curt Schilling apologized enough for ripping into the slugger last week?

Bonds' defenders want to look at the big picture, and that should take them beyond baseball, and beyond these borders. David Ortiz, one of Bonds' defenders, said last week that he couldn't be sure whether someone ever slipped something funny into the protein shakes he was given as a young player in the Dominican Republic.

He became furious when a headline suggested that he unwittingly doped himself, and rightly so. He raised a much larger issue about the dangers of a laissez-faire approach to steroids. It got lost in the noise, the early heat of the Summer of Cynicism.
E-mail Gwen Knapp at gknapp@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

 

[BawLa]

Barry Bonds' home-run chase will be at the heart of it all, dividing people more bitterly than electoral politics. Last week's ABC/ESPN poll, which showed that his support was divided along racial lines and that 52 percent of all respondents were rooting against him, cued a chorus of over-simplifiers. Bigoted player-hater or unscrupulous steroid enabler? Choose a side, and don't bother to shake the opponent's hand.

Oops.

Hank Aaron tried to stay on the sidelines, and look what happened to him. Since he said last month that he would not be present for No. 756, citing his reluctance to board planes at age 73, he has been called a coward, a bitter old man and, in a particularly vile bit of code language, a humble southerner who has made himself palatable to white fans.

It's bad enough that these critics forget what Aaron endured when he took the home-run record from Babe Ruth 33 years ago, but they couldn't even be bothered to look back three years and see Aaron pulling for Bonds and defending him when people brought up the fact that his trainer had been indicted for distributing steroids. (Aaron also said then that he didn't want to travel.)

That's what I thought!

But as more information about Bonds came out of the BALCO investigation, Aaron very quietly withdrew his support, avoiding media inquiries on the topic. When he broke the silence to reiterate that he wouldn't try to see the record-breaker, he added a new reason alongside his age: a desire to be at peace and not answer a bunch of questions.

That too.

Will sports fans pay attention, or keep their focus solely on Bonds, preferring to argue about his personality and whether Curt Schilling apologized enough for ripping into the slugger last week?

Hahahaha. She's funny.



Landis is meaningless compared to Bonds. Duh. Now if Landis ratted out Lance Armstrong, then that is a different story. Boy, how happy would the French be if that happened?

 

[VF21]

But as more information about Bonds came out of the BALCO investigation, Aaron very quietly withdrew his support...

That says a lot. And it also shows that Hank Aaron is still a class act. He doesn't want to be embroiled in the middle of this mess. What I see is that he withdrew his support and then gave some excuses for doing so that wouldn't add any fuel to the fire. For that, Aaron garners even more of my respect than ever.

 

[Purple Reign]

Barry Bonds is a Sacramento Kings Fan

From today's Dallas Morning News:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...taylor/stories/051707dnspotaylor.368ac12.html



HOUSTON – The biggest sports villain of my generation is a Spider-Man fan.
That's right, Barry Bonds – the most controversial figure in sports – is a fan of the red-and-blue clad web-slinger, and he can't wait to see Spider-Man 3.
The 42-year-old movie buff prefers action movies like 300 and has no use for chick flicks. Looked like he swallowed tobacco juice when I posed the question.

He's helping Arizona State, his alma mater, raise money for a new baseball stadium, says Rangers third-base coach Don Wakamatsu, a college teammate. Bonds reminisced that he was quite the ladies man back in his college days. He said he has been checking out the NBA playoffs.
By the way, he never tires of talking Sacramento Kings basketball.

Sounds like a regular dude. Of course, he's not. Far from it.
You can't be a regular guy when you're the son of a baseball star, the godson of a Hall of Famer, worth tens of millions of dollars and under constant scrutiny because we believe you used steroids to make yourself bigger and stronger.

Still, Bonds remains the greatest player in baseball history.

 

[VF21]

VF21 is a Kings fan. Barry Bonds is a Kings fan. That doesn't make VF21 a Barry Bonds fan. And, for that matter, it doesn't make Barry Bonds a VF21 fan...

 

[BawLa]

It's not about Aaron withdrawling support. It is not about what the mainstream media blows it up to be. It is purely simple. Hank Aaron is an old man that is tired of traveling and could care less what happens with Barry Bonds.


"No, I won't be there," he said.

Asked why, Aaron said: "I traveled for 23 years, and I just get tired of traveling. I'm not going to fly to go see somebody hit a home run, no matter whether it is Barry or Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or whoever it may be. I'm not going any place. I wish him all the luck in the world."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2879440



I find it ridiculous how this quote wasn't released until the last couple days. The media put their spin on this whole escapade to incite one last rally cry of hate towards Barry and when you finally get down to the meat of what Hank said, it is revealed as truly a non-issue.

 

[VF21]

I find it somewhat ridiculous that you find Aaron's tactful comments to be the whole story. Hank Aaron is a class act. He's not going to get embroiled in the whole sordid mess by saying anything other than something innocuous.

Is it the truth? It could be but it just as easily could be a comment made to keep from stirring the pot any further.

If Aaron wanted to, he could have easily said something about the whole steroid controversy. You know, something like "I support Barry and fully believe him when he says he didn't use steroids. I'm proud of him and his accomplishment as he gets closer to breaking my record." You would certainly expect to hear that in pretty much any other situation.

Sorry, BawLa, but Aaron's short remark isn't anywhere near as clear cut as you so desperately want it to be.

 

[BawLa]

I find it somewhat ridiculous that you find Aaron's tactful comments to be the whole story. Hank Aaron is a class act. He's not going to get embroiled in the whole sordid mess by saying anything other than something innocuous.

Is it the truth? It could be but it just as easily could be a comment made to keep from stirring the pot any further.

If Aaron wanted to, he could have easily said something about the whole steroid controversy. You know, something like "I support Barry and fully believe him when he says he didn't use steroids. I'm proud of him and his accomplishment as he gets closer to breaking my record." You would certainly expect to hear that in pretty much any other situation.

Sorry, BawLa, but Aaron's short remark isn't anywhere near as clear cut as you so desperately want it to be.

What part exactly of publicly supporting Barry Bonds would not be, as you so eloquently put, getting embroiled in the whole sordid mess?

If he supports Barry, then the public and media will swarm on him, baseball is ruined, etc. etc. And suggesting that it would be easy to publicly support Barry is just plain silly.

But he hasn't said publicly that he thinks Barry did take steriods knowingly either.


It is clear cut VF. Don't read into it too much. When an old man says he is tired, he's tired.

Do you have any idea how much traveling he did as a baseball player? And people actually expected him (a 73 year old man) to go everywhere the Giants go to watch Barry beat his record?


He says, I'm not going anywhere to see anyone, no matter who they are. That's about as clear cut as it gets.

He's telling the media, he won't be their puppet. And I praise him for that. Then again, maybe I could be reading into it too much.


Suggesting that what Hank said is not clear cut, and suggesting that I desperately want it to be clear cut is alltogether laughable.

 

[BawLa]

Skip Bayless came up with this idea on ESPN's First Take this morning.

A new rule for intentional walks:

First intentional walk - batter takes 1st base.
Second intentional walk - batter takes 2nd base.
Third intentional walk - batter takes 3rd base.


Of course it will NEVER happen. But I though it was an interesting idea and can make for some interesting discussion (hopefully not too heated).


Pros:
- Helps to limit situations where a team takes the bat out of a great player's hands. We want to see great players hit. If you want to take the bats out of their hands, then it is going to be a little bit harder. You can realistically only do it once per game.

- When a pitcher walks a guy, he lobs 4 balls to the side of the plate. If a pitcher wants to "un-intentionally" intentionally walk someone , then they will have to make real pitches that will at least tire their arm 4 pitches more.

Cons:
- Strategy for pitching to/around certain players gets all messed up. Kinda.

- Teams could get screwed if they were in a situation where they needed to put a guy on first to create a force-out, but they had already walked that guy intentionally.



Basically it would be a rule that would benefit the better players in our league, and benefit their respective teams. It would create more situations where teams are forced to play real baseball.

 

[JSin]

Skip Bayless came up with this idea on ESPN's First Take this morning.

A new rule for intentional walks:

First intentional walk - batter takes 1st base.
Second intentional walk - batter takes 2nd base.
Third intentional walk - batter takes 3rd base.


Of course it will NEVER happen. But I though it was an interesting idea and can make for some interesting discussion (hopefully not too heated).


Pros:
- Helps to limit situations where a team takes the bat out of a great player's hands. We want to see great players hit. If you want to take the bats out of their hands, then it is going to be a little bit harder. You can realistically only do it once per game.

- When a pitcher walks a guy, he lobs 4 balls to the side of the plate. If a pitcher wants to "un-intentionally" intentionally walk someone , then they will have to make real pitches that will at least tire their arm 4 pitches more.

Cons:
- Strategy for pitching to/around certain players gets all messed up. Kinda.

- Teams could get screwed if they were in a situation where they needed to put a guy on first to create a force-out, but they had already walked that guy intentionally.



Basically it would be a rule that would benefit the better players in our league, and benefit their respective teams. It would create more situations where teams are forced to play real baseball.

Intentional walks have always been one base and part of baseball, so I don't know what you mean by "real" baseball. You don't want to be avoided for being too good, don't play a sport that so individualistic that you can be avoided every time you come up to make a difference. I hate watching Barry get intentional walker, but changing the rule because you want to see him swing is not in the spirit of the game.

 

[mcsluggo]

I find it somewhat ridiculous that you find Aaron's tactful comments to be the whole story. Hank Aaron is a class act. He's not going to get embroiled in the whole sordid mess by saying anything other than something innocuous.

Is it the truth? It could be but it just as easily could be a comment made to keep from stirring the pot any further.

If Aaron wanted to, he could have easily said something about the whole steroid controversy. You know, something like "I support Barry and fully believe him when he says he didn't use steroids. I'm proud of him and his accomplishment as he gets closer to breaking my record." You would certainly expect to hear that in pretty much any other situation.

Sorry, BawLa, but Aaron's short remark isn't anywhere near as clear cut as you so desperately want it to be.

oh, please.

 

[VF21]

What part exactly of publicly supporting Barry Bonds would not be, as you so eloquently put, getting embroiled in the whole sordid mess?

If he supports Barry, then the public and media will swarm on him, baseball is ruined, etc. etc. And suggesting that it would be easy to publicly support Barry is just plain silly.

But he hasn't said publicly that he thinks Barry did take steriods knowingly either.


It is clear cut VF. Don't read into it too much. When an old man says he is tired, he's tired.

Do you have any idea how much traveling he did as a baseball player? And people actually expected him (a 73 year old man) to go everywhere the Giants go to watch Barry beat his record?


He says, I'm not going anywhere to see anyone, no matter who they are. That's about as clear cut as it gets.

He's telling the media, he won't be their puppet. And I praise him for that. Then again, maybe I could be reading into it too much.


Suggesting that what Hank said is not clear cut, and suggesting that I desperately want it to be clear cut is alltogether laughable.

and this is the whole crux of the matter. You'll see what you want to see; I'll see what I want to see. I strongly suspect the actual truth may lie somewhere in between.

And, yes, I do indeed have an idea of how much traveling Hank Aaron made during his career. I was also lucky enough to see him play, back when I still believed in baseball. The man was and is truly a class act. Even in other team's stadiums he was gracious with the fans.

We'll never agree on this. I'm just waiting for the day Bonds retires so the Giants can get back to being about baseball and not just about Barry Bonds.

 

[kupman]

Why does anyone care what Hammerin' Hank thinks? He wants to be left alone - so, out of respect, just leave him alone.

 

[VF21]

Why would anyone care? Well, maybe just maybe because he currently holds the revered home run record Barry Bonds is closing in on?

The most revered record in baseball is going to be broken by someone with a big cloud over him. I would think it's pretty normal to wonder how Aaron will feel about his record being beaten by someone who might have cheated to get to this point. The steroid controversy has put all of this in a different light. Nobody likes to see cheaters prosper (figuratively speaking) so those who think Bonds cheated (both fans and sports writers) are naturally questioning how Aaron feels about it.

 

[kupman]

If Hank came out and stated that he is honored that his HR record is being broken by Barry Bonds, do you think that would change anyone's opinion about Barry Bonds?

Many people are just hoping that he will join in on the dog pile.

 

[Merdiesel]

Its funny...
Everyone who talks all this **** about Bonds wouldn't say **** if he was on their favorite team.

I love Barry. I can't wait until the day he breaks that record, everyone who is going to cry it can cry all they want... I will be cheering my *** off supporting THE GREATEST SLUGGER OF ALL TIME!

 

[SLAB]

Its funny...
Everyone who talks all this **** about Bonds wouldn't say **** if he was on their favorite team.

I love Barry. I can't wait until the day he breaks that record, everyone who is going to cry it can cry all they want... I will be cheering my *** off supporting THE GREATEST SLUGGER OF ALL TIME!

You know that even though that is 100% true. that every Bonds hater would deny it.

Thats just how it works with this man...Your either 100% for him or 1000% against him.

 

[VF21]

Bull.

The Giants WERE my favorite team for more years than I can count. Barry Bonds presence is one of the main factors, although not the only one, that contributed to my total disenchantment with the team ... And the whole steroids debacle pretty much put the nail in the coffin of me being a baseball fan.

 

[SLAB]

Why didn't steroids do the same thing to you for football then? Does it have to wait until someone starts breaking records with steroids hanging over his head? Baseball isn't the lone only sport with the stuff, you know?

And Im sorry if you've answered this earlier, but Im not 100% sure if I've gotten a response yet.

 

[BawLa]

And Im sorry if you've answered this earlier, but Im not 100% sure if I've gotten a response yet.

You haven't and you never will. The whole steroid issue can make hypocrites out of anyone.

And now we have Selig threatening Giambi to talk. Way to go Bud. As if the investigators want anything other than Barry Bonds to be mentioned. And so the witch hunt continues...

 

[VF21]

You haven't and you never will. The whole steroid issue can make hypocrites out of anyone.

And now we have Selig threatening Giambi to talk. Way to go Bud. As if the investigators want anything other than Barry Bonds to be mentioned. And so the witch hunt continues...

I resent your implication that I'm a hypocrite.

SLAB - The whole point is that Barry Bonds, IMHO, used steroids and is now on the verge of shattering a long-standing record partially because of that usage. As far as pro football goes, can you name a player who has profited to the extent Bonds will by cheating?

This isn't about pro football. That's a classic debate technique, though. If you want to start a discussion of steroids in pro football, fine. Feel free to do so. Want to talk cycling? Fine. I'm pretty disgusted with that right now, too. As it becomes more and more likely that Landis did use some kind of drug, then I have to say I'm very disappointed in him.

BUT here's the big difference. The guys like Landis who have been caught have paid for their indiscretions. Barry Bonds hasn't - and probably never will. That just doesn't sit right with me. And my opinion isn't going to change.

In a recent article in Sports Illustrated (a couple of weeks ago, I believe) it was pretty clear that there are a LOT of people like me who feel the same way. You can pretend there aren't but it doesn't change anything.

If you want to support Barry Bonds and bow at his feet, that's your choice. I respect that but in return I expect you and the other Bondites to respect the fact that my opinion is just as valid as yours. Which is why I've tried to stay out of this thread as much as possible. What amazes me is how people have to keep taking digs as those of us who are non-believers in some desperate attempt, I presume, to shame us into changing our viewpoints. I speak for no one but myself but I'm not going to change my opinion of Barry Bonds. And I didn't reach it over night. I've read a lot of articles and formed an educated opinion without the "fan-tinted" glasses getting in the way.

Here's a question for you: If Barry Bonds was on the Dodgers, would you HONESTLY be defending him as much?

 

[nebs]

It's a simple question that you still have not answered.

you want to support Barry Bonds and bow at his feet

That's your answer.

 

[BawLa]

SLAB - The whole point is that Barry Bonds, IMHO, used steroids and is now on the verge of shattering a long-standing record partially because of that usage. As far as pro football goes, can you name a player who has profited to the extent Bonds will by cheating?

Allow me SLAB. You recognize that Barry is breaking the record "partially" because of steroid usage. So at least you can recognize that the rest of it comes from being an exceptional baseball player. And when you say partially, how much do you mean? How long do you think Barry took steriods? Once? One week? One month? One year? One decade? How long? Because after you establish how long you think he used, then you can talk about how much you think he profited.

At least you're becoming more clear about your stance. You hate Bonds the most out of all the cheaters, known and unknown, because he "profited" the most from it. So if Jason Giambi profited more than Barry, then according to what you say, you would hate him more. Okay, I'll buy it.

And as for pro football, Merriman entered the NFL in 2005 where he recorded 6 sacks in 4 starts. He was named to the pro bowl. In 2006, he led the NFL with 17 sacks in 12 games (4 game suspension due to steriods), and he had 4 forced fumbles. He was again named to the pro bowl (before being caught - I think) in 2006. So this kid goes from rookie to pro LITERALLY OVERNIGHT. He got TONS of publicity and is now known as "lights out". Despite being caught NO ONE seemed to care. Here's a case of a guy who wasn't breaking any records, but was clearly "profiting" from steriod use. And you don't seem to care. In fact, one could argue that his ENTIRE career has been steriod inflated. You could not make that same argument for Barry Bonds. What does all this Merriman talk mean? It means the media and the public are becoming more and more obvious in their public witch-hunt of Barry Bonds. Again, all the hatred and bashing was never as much about steriods as much as it was about Barry Bonds.

What I will look for in the next 5 years is: will Shawne Merriman be "lights out" or just another linebacker. That way we will know if what he did in '05 and '06 was legitimate or not. And if he goes on to become a great linebacker, then the argument could be made: how much does steriods ACTUALLY help you. Of course it is different for every sport but I'm just not buying that steriods does much other than allow you to put on large amounts of muscle mass in a short period of time, and allow you to recover quicker.

This isn't about pro football. That's a classic debate technique, though. If you want to start a discussion of steroids in pro football, fine. Feel free to do so. Want to talk cycling? Fine. I'm pretty disgusted with that right now, too. As it becomes more and more likely that Landis did use some kind of drug, then I have to say I'm very disappointed in him.

You're right, this isn't about pro football, but we were trying to make comparisons of steriod use. We weren't trying to bring up football and cycling to take the spotlight off of Bonds. Nothing could do that. Instead we were trying to make correlations of how you are SO outspoken about Bonds, but not a peep about anyone else who actually knowingly took steriods. I understand that baseball had a special place in your heart until the steroid era, but from everything you have said, it points to more that you hate Barry Bonds (the person) and could care less about steriods or some stupid record. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'm sorry if I offended you.

BUT here's the big difference. The guys like Landis who have been caught have paid for their indiscretions. Barry Bonds hasn't - and probably never will. That just doesn't sit right with me. And my opinion isn't going to change.

Say Barry gets caught. He gets a 10 game suspension like Palmiero. Would that be enough for you? I sincerely doubt it.

Barry Bonds hasn't been caught because there isn't enough evidence. That tells me that he wasn't using for a long period of time. Because if he did use steriods for an extended period of time, there would be a papertrail. You know why the prosecutors can't get Barry, because there is no papertrail. There is no evidence. And because the one guy who supplied the steriods, won't rat on Barry to save his own hide - not that he could save his hide much more by talking. And I still believe that Barry took what Anderson gave him and didn't question a thing. How the hell would he know if some cream had steroids in it until weeks down the line when he saw some strange things happening to him, at which point he's probably thinking, wow I should have been using flaxssed oil my whole career.

You know what doesn't sit right with me? How those no name reporters could make a book that is a bunch of truths that have been twisted to support what the public wants. They have profited off of steroids and Barry Bonds more than Barry himself.

In a recent article in Sports Illustrated (a couple of weeks ago, I believe) it was pretty clear that there are a LOT of people like me who feel the same way. You can pretend there aren't but it doesn't change anything.

There were also a lot of people that thought the world was flat. Until a guy named Chris proved them wrong. The problem is that Barry can never prove people like you wrong. The media and public have already condemned Barry without any LEGITIMATE proof. All he can do is continue to hit home runs and stand by his original statements.

If you want to support Barry Bonds and bow at his feet, that's your choice. I respect that but in return I expect you and the other Bondites to respect the fact that my opinion is just as valid as yours. Which is why I've tried to stay out of this thread as much as possible. What amazes me is how people have to keep taking digs as those of us who are non-believers in some desperate attempt, I presume, to shame us into changing our viewpoints. I speak for no one but myself but I'm not going to change my opinion of Barry Bonds. And I didn't reach it over night. I've read a lot of articles and formed an educated opinion without the "fan-tinted" glasses getting in the way.

Here's a question for you: If Barry Bonds was on the Dodgers, would you HONESTLY be defending him as much?

I bow at the feet of no one. I do recognize that he is the greatest home run hitter of our time, and the greatest home run hitter of all history.

Where are your articles? Why don't you present them. Or at least the ones that aren't totally mainstream. I would love to read them and address their content. And you may find that the people who write those articles are just as bias as you.

If you want to continue to ignore certain points, that could potentially change your point of view, then you are being stubborn. Ignorance is bliss right? And the majority of the Bonds haters out there are very blissful in their ignorance. Are there holes in my argument, sure. Are there holes in yours, definitely. I just feel like I have to stand up for Barry because of the hypocracy that surrounds this whole thing.

Let me make this official. I support Bonds, because he is a Giant, and because he is the greatest hitter of our time, and arguably all time. And people are so caught up with this steriod thing that they forgot to remember those facts.

If your point of view doesn't change, fine. But there are other people that read these threads who don't post their feelings. People who might think like you but might also be willing to see the other side, which is so rarely discussed.

And another thing, I don't care about any dodgers. I used to like Jason Schmidt as a Giant. Now I hate him. Understand? If Barry was a dodger I would pay no attention to him and I would hate seeing the Giants play against him, because he is such an incredible player. But I would not condemn him the way everyone else has. If you don't believe me, fine, just like I don't believe you when you say certain things. When I don't have the proof to call you on it, I just let it go.

I believe that Barry unkowningly took steriods. I will continue to support him and fire back at people that take unwarranted shots at Barry. If some evidence comes out that makes that untrue, then I will GLADLY eat my words. Until then, I've got to believe my guy.

 

[VF21]

BawLa: My next post is extraordinarily long and I HATE those kinds of posts. But I felt it necessary to respond to you. I do not want to continue a point-by-point dissection as this has already taken way too much of my time and interest.

All I ask basically of you and other Bonds supporters is that you realize people who do not support him are not haters or out to destroy him. They (we) have differing opinions. We try very hard to maintain civil conversations but it's awfully difficult when we're constantly being called names, accused of being ignorant or stubborn, etc.

 

[VF21]

Allow me SLAB. You recognize that Barry is breaking the record "partially" because of steroid usage. So at least you can recognize that the rest of it comes from being an exceptional baseball player. And when you say partially, how much do you mean? How long do you think Barry took steriods? Once? One week? One month? One year? One decade? How long? Because after you establish how long you think he used, then you can talk about how much you think he profited.

I think he took them for a while. I have no idea how long but I don't think it was an "oops, I did it once" type of thing. At that point, it's fruit from the tainted tree in my mind. I don't know how else to explain that. Whether or not he's an exceptional ball player doesn't matter. Exceptional people sometimes do extraordinarily stupid things. He didn't have to cheat; he did and he should not be recognized (again IMHO) as breaking Aaron's record because even if it was just one season that throws his total off by at least 30-40. So, sorry Barry but close but no cigar...

At least you're becoming more clear about your stance. You hate Bonds the most out of all the cheaters, known and unknown, because he "profited" the most from it. So if Jason Giambi profited more than Barry, then according to what you say, you would hate him more. Okay, I'll buy it.

Barry Bonds is a tragic figure. I dislike him for a lot of reasons; I hate what he's doing to the record books because it's accepting cheating for the sake of the record. That's an egregious slap in the face to players like Hank Aaron.

And as for pro football, Merriman entered the NFL in 2005 where he recorded 6 sacks in 4 starts. He was named to the pro bowl. In 2006, he led the NFL with 17 sacks in 12 games (4 game suspension due to steriods), and he had 4 forced fumbles. He was again named to the pro bowl (before being caught - I think) in 2006. So this kid goes from rookie to pro LITERALLY OVERNIGHT. He got TONS of publicity and is now known as "lights out". Despite being caught NO ONE seemed to care. Here's a case of a guy who wasn't breaking any records, but was clearly "profiting" from steriod use. And you don't seem to care. In fact, one could argue that his ENTIRE career has been steriod inflated. You could not make that same argument for Barry Bonds. What does all this Merriman talk mean? It means the media and the public are becoming more and more obvious in their public witch-hunt of Barry Bonds. Again, all the hatred and bashing was never as much about steriods as much as it was about Barry Bonds.

What I will look for in the next 5 years is: will Shawne Merriman be "lights out" or just another linebacker. That way we will know if what he did in '05 and '06 was legitimate or not. And if he goes on to become a great linebacker, then the argument could be made: how much does steriods ACTUALLY help you. Of course it is different for every sport but I'm just not buying that steriods does much other than allow you to put on large amounts of muscle mass in a short period of time, and allow you to recover quicker.

Again, this isn't about football. Perhaps, as you've hinted, maybe my standards are different but, to be totally honest, I don't pay that much attention to defensive linemen. I love the offensive side of football much more. My heroes are QBs and RBs and the occasional offensive front linesman who helps protect said QB. But it doesn't matter. This isn't about football.

quote]You're right, this isn't about pro football, but we were trying to make comparisons of steriod use. We weren't trying to bring up football and cycling to take the spotlight off of Bonds. Nothing could do that. Instead we were trying to make correlations of how you are SO outspoken about Bonds, but not a peep about anyone else who actually knowingly took steriods. I understand that baseball had a special place in your heart until the steroid era, but from everything you have said, it points to more that you hate Barry Bonds (the person) and could care less about steriods or some stupid record. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'm sorry if I offended you.[/quote]

I'm outspoken about Bonds for the very simple and obvious reason that some of you are so blatantly blind to anything that points even a finger of doubt in the direction of Barry Bonds. You have him on a pedestal, as though he is the poor innocent victim who never did anything wrong and has been horribly mistreated his entire career. And I have entered discussions about steroid use in cycling. Until recently, I didn't think there was enough unbiased valid evidence against Landis, especially considering the attitude of the French towards American cyclists. Now, however, having heard more (including the comments of Greg LeMond) I haven't shirked from saying that I'm very disappointed in Landis. But there's the difference again. Landis is paying for his indiscretion. Bonds is still coasting along, acting as though he never did anything wrong although the evidence continues to mount to prove otherwise. At what point would you accept that maybe, just maybe Bonds is lying and not everyone else who has tied him to BALCO, etc?

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate Barry Bonds the person. I hate what Barry Bonds the athlete has done to put himself above the very game that has been so good to him. He doesn't give a rat's patoot about baseball. He only care about Barry Bonds.

Say Barry gets caught. He gets a 10 game suspension like Palmiero. Would that be enough for you? I sincerely doubt it.

Barry Bonds hasn't been caught because there isn't enough evidence. That tells me that he wasn't using for a long period of time. Because if he did use steriods for an extended period of time, there would be a papertrail. You know why the prosecutors can't get Barry, because there is no papertrail. There is no evidence. And because the one guy who supplied the steriods, won't rat on Barry to save his own hide - not that he could save his hide much more by talking. And I still believe that Barry took what Anderson gave him and didn't question a thing. How the hell would he know if some cream had steroids in it until weeks down the line when he saw some strange things happening to him, at which point he's probably thinking, wow I should have been using flaxssed oil my whole career.

Again, you're interpreting what you've read and heard to meet your own perceptions. That's fine but it doesn't mean I'm going to interpret them the same way. The statement that he didn't get caught doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. Have you ever run a light as it turned red? Does the fact that a cop didn't see you mean you didn't run the light?

You know what doesn't sit right with me? How those no name reporters could make a book that is a bunch of truths that have been twisted to support what the public wants. They have profited off of steroids and Barry Bonds more than Barry himself.

No name reporters? Isn't that attacking the messenger because you don't agree with the message?

There were also a lot of people that thought the world was flat. Until a guy named Chris proved them wrong. The problem is that Barry can never prove people like you wrong. The media and public have already condemned Barry without any LEGITIMATE proof. All he can do is continue to hit home runs and stand by his original statements.

You can be convicted of first-degree murder without a body. At some point the amount of circumstantial evidence to support an allegation has to be taken into consideration.

I bow at the feet of no one. I do recognize that he is the greatest home run hitter of our time, and the greatest home run hitter of all history.

And he still cheated...

Where are your articles? Why don't you present them. Or at least the ones that aren't totally mainstream. I would love to read them and address their content. And you may find that the people who write those articles are just as bias as you.

If you want to continue to ignore certain points, that could potentially change your point of view, then you are being stubborn. Ignorance is bliss right? And the majority of the Bonds haters out there are very blissful in their ignorance. Are there holes in my argument, sure. Are there holes in yours, definitely. I just feel like I have to stand up for Barry because of the hypocracy that surrounds this whole thing.

Excuse me? I try my best to present an honest viewpoint and you have to resort to saying that because I have the courage of my convictions I'm stubborn and ignorant? I resent the hell out of that. "People who write those articles are just as bias(ed) as you?" Ah, once again you want to discredit the messenger because the message doesn't agree with your conclusions.

Let me make this official. I support Bonds, because he is a Giant, and because he is the greatest hitter of our time, and arguably all time. And people are so caught up with this steriod thing that they forgot to remember those facts.

No, people are reluctant to accept how easily some like you want to anoint Bonds as "the greatest hitter of our time" because HE CHEATED. Cheaters shouldn't prosper, either in reputation or finances, from their deeds.

If your point of view doesn't change, fine. But there are other people that read these threads who don't post their feelings. People who might think like you but might also be willing to see the other side, which is so rarely discussed.

Ah, I'm not willing to see the other side? Is that like saying I'm ignorant, which you did above? Balderdash.

And another thing, I don't care about any dodgers. I used to like Jason Schmidt as a Giant. Now I hate him. Understand? If Barry was a dodger I would pay no attention to him and I would hate seeing the Giants play against him, because he is such an incredible player. But I would not condemn him the way everyone else has. If you don't believe me, fine, just like I don't believe you when you say certain things. When I don't have the proof to call you on it, I just let it go.

Yes, I do understand. You'll excuse anything anyone does as long as they're wearing the uniform of the S.F. Giants. Got it. It's clear as a bell now...

I believe that Barry unkowningly took steriods. I will continue to support him and fire back at people that take unwarranted shots at Barry. If some evidence comes out that makes that untrue, then I will GLADLY eat my words. Until then, I've got to believe my guy.

Fine. Fire away. But the shots aren't "unwarranted." You may think they're unsubstantiated but there is definitely enough smoke there to warrant a fire check.

Bottom line is that you can support him all you like. Just don't expect everyone to see the Emperor's new clothes the same way you do.

 

[G_M]

I know that everyone involved is lying except for Bonds. However, this is a synopsis of why I know Bonds used steroids. Besides, his own admissions and my own gift of eyesight and common sense.

• Statements to Federal Agents
1. When he was questioned during the raid, BALCO's James Valente told Novitzky that Bonds had received the undetectable steroids the Cream and the Clear from BALCO. Valente said Anderson had brought Bonds to BALCO before the 2003 season, seeking steroids that would not show up on drug tests. Valente said he provided Anderson with drugs to give to Bonds. Valente pleaded guilty to a steroid conspiracy charge in 2005.

2. In his own statement during the raid, Conte gave an identical account of Anderson's bringing Bonds to BALCO and Bonds's subsequent use of the Cream and the Clear. Conte said Bonds used the drugs on a regular basis. Conte later claimed Novitzky's report contained words he never said. But it is significant that in 2005, Conte backed out of an evidentiary hearing in which he could have confronted Novitzky about the supposedly incorrect statements and sought to have them thrown out of court. Instead, Conte pleaded guilty to a steroid conspiracy charge.

3. When Anderson was questioned by agents on the day of the raid, he admitted giving banned drugs to many of his "baseball clients" but denied giving drugs to Bonds. In a search of Anderson's residence, agents found calendars referring to Bonds that plotted his use of steroids. When the agents sought to question Anderson about the calendars, the trainer said he didn't think he should talk anymore because he didn't want to go to jail. He pleaded guilty to steroid conspiracy and acknowledged in court that he dealt drugs to baseball players.

4. In the summer of 2004 the former Olympic shot putter C. J. Hunter told agent Novitzky that Conte had confided to him that Bonds was using the Clear. Hunter said their conversation had taken place in '03. Hunter's lawyer later said the federal agent's report was incorrect and that Conte had not implicated Bonds to Hunter.

• U.S. Grand Jury Testimony
1. In 2005 Kimberly Bell told the BALCO grand jury that in '00 Bonds had confided in her that he was using steroids, saying they helped him recover from injuries but also blaming them for the elbow injury that sidelined him in 1999.

2. In 2003 sprinter Tim Montgomery told the grand jury that when he visited BALCO in '00 or '01, he saw vials of the steroid Winstrol in BALCO's weight room. Montgomery testified that Conte said he was giving Winstrol to Bonds.

3. In 2003 five baseball players told the grand jury that they'd gotten steroids, growth hormone and other drugs from Anderson, whom they had met in his role as Bonds's trainer. The obvious import of their testimony was that they were receiving the same drugs that Anderson was giving Bonds, but the players claimed no direct knowledge of Bonds's steroid use.

• Documents
At Anderson's apartment, investigators found steroids, growth hormone and $60,000 in cash, along with a folder that contained doping calendars and other documents detailing Bonds's use of steroids. Prosecutors questioned Bonds about the documents during his appearance before the grand jury. Some document entries reflect payments for drugs for Bonds: $1,500 for two boxes of growth hormone; $450 for a bottle of Depotestosterone; $100 for 100 Clomiphene pills; $200 for the Cream and the Clear. Other entries reflect Bonds's drug cycle: For February 2002, a calendar showed alternating days of the Cream, the Clear and growth hormone followed by "Clow," or Clomid.


A document labeled "BLB 2003" listed cities where the Giants played away games in 2003, with notations for the use of growth hormone, the Clear, the Cream and insulin on specific days. Other documents associated with Bonds referred to the use of trenbolone and "beans," the Mexican steroid. At Anderson's apartment, and in a search of BALCO's trash, the agents also found evidence of Bonds's blood being sent to drug labs for steroid testing.

• Circumstantial Evidence
To some experts, the changes in Bonds's body in recent years constitute persuasive evidence of steroid use. No one at his age could put on so much muscle without using steroids, these observers reason.

According to team media guides, which are often imprecise, Bonds has grown one inch in height and gained 43 pounds since his rookie year of 1986. In 2004, the Giants reported his weight as 228, but sources familiar with Bonds say he was heavier. Bonds himself has claimed all the weight gain is muscle, not fat. In '97, when the Giants reported that he weighed 206, Bonds told USA Today that his body fat was an extraordinarily low 8%. In '02, when Bonds's weight was listed at 228, Greg Anderson told The New York Times Magazine that Bonds's body fat was even lower: 6.2%.

The belief that the changes in Bonds's body reflect steroid use is supported by the research of Harvard psychiatrist Harrison Pope, an expert on the mental-health effects of steroid abuse. In 1995, in The Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, Pope and three colleagues published a mathematical formula for use in determining whether a person is using steroids. The "Fat-Free Mass Index," as the formula is called, predicts steroid use from a series of computations involving the subject's "lean muscle mass," which is determined from height, weight and percentage of body fat. The higher the index number, the leaner and more muscular the individual is. The average 30-year-old American male scores 20, Pope says, while the former Mr. America Steve Reeves, the most famous muscle man of the presteroid era, scored 25 in his prime. A score of more than 25 indicates steroid use.

In 1997, when Bonds reportedly weighed 206 and had 8% body fat, he scored 24.8 on the index. In 2002, when Bonds reportedly weighed 228 and had body fat of 6.2% his score was 28 -- well over the level of a "presumptive diagnosis" of steroid use.