Bonds Poll

[kq76]

I answered I don't know as in I don't think I have enough info to think he did or didn't in 2001. It certainly doesn't look good though. I'm curious as to why some people voted no. What makes them think he didn't?

[benchwarmer]

Originally Posted by kq76

I answered I don't know as in I don't think I have enough info to think he did or didn't in 2001. It certainly doesn't look good though. I'm curious as to why some people voted no. What makes them think he didn't?

I voted no.

There isnt any proof he did, or that he didn't for that matter. But in my mind, he's innocent until proven guilty. I could have voted "i dont know", but thats too indesivive for me, i will continue to think he did not use roids in 2001, until proven otherwise.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by benchwarmer

I voted no.

There isnt any proof he did, or that he didn't for that matter. But in my mind, he's innocent until proven guilty. I could have voted "i dont know", but thats too indesivive for me, i will continue to think he did not use roids in 2001, until proven otherwise.

I think that [just accepting innocence until proven guilty] is really just refusing to take a stance one way or another. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's thinking he did or didn't.

[ctorg]

I don't really know either way, but I didn't want to pick "don't know" because I do lean towards a "yes" on that.

[Slackker]

Problem being he will never be proven guilty, or innocent for that matter. His testimony provided him with immunity concerning his steroid use in 2003. Without that evidence all the government would have to put him on trial is speculation - and that's not going to happen. Don't get me wrong.. I respect that people still believe that others can't buy their way to an innocent verdict (referencing OJ from another post of mine).. if there's a trial at all.. but it's looking at the world through rose colored glasses, in my mind.

I believe that he did. To quote Mr. Terrell Owens.. "If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it is a rat."

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

Of course I think he did, but what's the point of the question?

I'll give it a point. Bonds' lawyer is talking about how no one can get Bonds on anything since he didn't use, so they're trying to "convict him in the court of public opinion". Therefore this poll is testing a relatively small sample size of baseball fans to see if this public opinion "trial" is a success.

Feel better Eck? =)

[laspace3]

Lets all turn our heads and pretend were stupid.

Lets see here, Barry Bonds a great line-drive, high average hitter with decent power suddenly becomes superman in a stage of his career when most athletes are on the decline.

Barry admits taking something on a regular time period from his personal trainer but doesnt know what it was for a fact, assumed it was a nutrional supplement. Paid trainer $25,000 "cash" per year for the "nutrional " supplements.

Wish all you want that it isnt true, but personally I have just about had my fill of todays athletes with their cavalier attitudes toward responsiblity and their "me first" mentality. I often wonder why I even bother rooting for the home team when the players on the team could give a crap about loyalty and integrity. Its all about the money!

[attackemu]

My answer is yes, but what difference does it make? Jeremy Giambi and Marvin Benard took steroids too. Its not as though they make sudden supermen out of anybody who comes near them.

There's no study, really, that shows what effect it has on players. Sure, some top of the line guys have been implicated, but so have some below average players. The only thing people can point to is "Well, steroids makes you stronger and faster" which...I mean...common sense dictates is true but I'd really like to see the proven effects on, say, Giambi's 2000 season or Bonds' 2001 season.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by laspace3

Barry admits taking something on a regular time period from his personal trainer but doesnt know what it was for a fact, assumed it was a nutrional supplement. Paid trainer $25,000 "cash" per year for the "nutrional " supplements.

He should have gotten his flaxseed at Costco - much, much cheaper.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by laspace3

Barry admits taking something on a regular time period from his personal trainer but doesnt know what it was for a fact, assumed it was a nutrional supplement. Paid trainer $25,000 "cash" per year for the "nutrional " supplements.

According to the revealed documents, BALCO indeed gave Bonds tons of supplements and medications with a huge variety of range.

The prosecutors claim they have paperwork that suggests Bonds was on a fairly rigorous regimen of both supplements and performance-enhancers that ran the gamut from a fertility drug for women to a drug to combat narcolepsy.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...12/03/RATTO.TMP

So the " I didn't know what it was" defense doesn't sound all that unreasonable, if Bonds indeed took so many different supplements.

It wasn't a "give me the clear and the cream for $25,000 please" case.

[AnotherAlias]

I believe he did. But I feel that more evidence needs to be provided before he's determined guilty.

[wireman]

Given that the poll asks for an opinion, my answer was "yes."

Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Not that I've seen. Did he know what he was ingesting? I have no idea.

I really hope he didn't take anything questionable. But it may never be proven either way, which would leave him in O.J. limbo: he's legally innocent but everybody thinks he's guilty.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

The reason for my original question was this: "guilty" of what? It's unlikely that Bonds would have testified before the grand jury about steroid use if he hadn't received immunity for criminal prosecution.

More to the point, it's my understanding that nothing Bonds is alleged to have done was illegal under the 2001 rules of baseball. So, of what are we trying to find Bonds "guilty?"

My point is not that steroid use is great or acceptable - as I've said before, I'd be the first in line to support some really draconian measures to stop steroid use in baseball going forward. But you don't just get to redefine the rules and apply them retroactively - any more than the state can say that the new highway speed limit is 25 miles per hour and send out speeding tickets to everyone who's been driving 65 for years.

If Bud Selig tries to apply the rules retroactively, he will (rightfully) get destroyed by the Players' Association and the arbitrator. He knows this, and is probably trying to come up with a way around it. This is just another case of modern baseball sticking its head in the sand until public outrage forces some bizarre and disproportionate punishment for one or two scapegoats. It just shows how dismal the "leadership" in baseball has become - in 1947, baseball was on the cutting edge of public opinion. Today, Bud won't do a damn thing until a torch-bearing mob is amassing outside his door - and then will scapegoat a handful of people rather than addressing the problem.

Steroids are now an entrenched, endemic problem in MLB. Something needs to be done and soon. But blaming the guys who took advantage of a loophole in baseball's rules and rode it to riches isn't going to solve the problem.

[IatricSB]

One of the known side effects of using the steroids in question is that your head gets bigger. Bonds hat size has grown 4 sizes during this period. So I'll go with yes unless he has some unknown disease.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

The reason for my original question was this: "guilty" of what? It's unlikely that Bonds would have testified before the grand jury about steroid use if he hadn't received immunity for criminal prosecution.

More to the point, it's my understanding that nothing Bonds is alleged to have done was illegal under the 2001 rules of baseball. So, of what are we trying to find Bonds "guilty?"

My point is not that steroid use is great or acceptable - as I've said before, I'd be the first in line to support some really draconian measures to stop steroid use in baseball going forward. But you don't just get to redefine the rules and apply them retroactively - any more than the state can say that the new highway speed limit is 25 miles per hour and send out speeding tickets to everyone who's been driving 65 for years.

If Bud Selig tries to apply the rules retroactively, he will (rightfully) get destroyed by the Players' Association and the arbitrator. He knows this, and is probably trying to come up with a way around it. This is just another case of modern baseball sticking its head in the sand until public outrage forces some bizarre and disproportionate punishment for one or two scapegoats. It just shows how dismal the "leadership" in baseball has become - in 1947, baseball was on the cutting edge of public opinion. Today, Bud won't do a damn thing until a torch-bearing mob is amassing outside his door - and then will scapegoat a handful of people rather than addressing the problem.

Steroids are now an entrenched, endemic problem in MLB. Something needs to be done and soon. But blaming the guys who took advantage of a loophole in baseball's rules and rode it to riches isn't going to solve the problem.

I always respect your views and enjoy reading them, Eck.

A few random observations of my own:

-- I don't know if Bonds could be guilty of any criminal offenses. If he played any role in an illegal distribution arrangement, even as a "consumer," I suppose he could be. If he testified under a grant of immunity, that certainly would leave people with that impression.

-- Is any of the pursuit of Bonds in this matter motivated by the fact that he doesn't seem to be all that well-liked to begin with? I don't know. I follow the game at a respectful distance nowadays, but from where I sit he does seem to be a popular target of criticism already.

-- Bud Selig. Another popular whipping boy, and why the hell not? Is baseball interested in cleaning anything up? Apparently not, or it would get a real commissioner. Once upon a time, the game had a crisis of confidence, and turned to Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Whatever the judge's flaws, I think it's fair to say that Bud Selig is no Landis, and that's no secret. If baseball wants to establish its earnestness here, it needs to show it.

-- I assume every player in every sport is constantly looking for every competitive edge he can get. Now, one of the reasons I don't follow sports very closely anymore is that I have trouble identifying with a guy whose neck is bigger around than my waist. But that's my preference. If people find it entertaining to watch a league of mad cyborgs, it doesn't hurt me any.

-- What does concern me a lot is the thought of junior-high kids taking steroids because their heroes do. Young people do not have much perspective on how short life really is, so they think they'd be quite willing to be Lyle Alzado at 42 if they can be Lyle Alzado at 25. To me, that's tragic.

Remember the old saying: Nobody wants to live to be 100 -- except the guy who's 99? You'll never know if shortening your life was worth it until you get there, and then you can't change your mind.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by wireman

-- What does concern me a lot is the thought of junior-high kids taking steroids because their heroes do. Young people do not have much perspective on how short life really is, so they think they'd be quite willing to be Lyle Alzado at 42 if they can be Lyle Alzado at 25. To me, that's tragic.

This is actually the reason why I support draconian measures going forward. Frankly, I could not possibly care less what sorts of things Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, or any other major league player put into their bodies in order to obtain a perceived competitive advantage. They are well-compensated professionals, and the risk-benefit may actually be worth it for them. However, I don't want to see tens of thousands of kids from age 12 on up taking these dangerous substances to try to get that same advantage.

Obviously, Bud Selig just wants to make the PR nightmare go away, so what I expect to happen is that some convenient scapegoat - possibly Jason Giambi - will have the book thrown at him, and that will pass for "strict enforcement." Meanwhile, MLB will likely continue to deny that widespread steroid use occurs.

[laspace3]

I have to laugh to myself when I hear a grown man who relies on the well being of his bodie for his living admit to a panel with a straight face he didnt know for a fact what it was he was taking and assumed it was a nutrional supplement. On top of that the supplied "nutrional supplements" were always paid in cash, not check,money order, bank transfer or any other form of traceable transaction...CASH to the amount of $25,000 per year.

To those of you who dont see the harm in this, look your child in the face and try to explain to him/her how its not right to take steroids but in the meantime the whole sporting world adores and worships athletes to the point of denial to the obvious. Bonds has the body of a Macys Thanksgiving day parade balloon with a face on it.

They were talking on one of the Sunday morning news programs that within 10 years genetic altering drugs will be available and at this point undetectable to determine if being used. Imagine the possiblities we as fans would have to cheer on our genetic altered athletes of the future. One step short of virtual robots and it will be our sons and daughters!

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by laspace3

I have to laugh to myself when I hear a grown man who relies on the well being of his bodie for his living admit to a panel with a straight face he didnt know for a fact what it was he was taking and assumed it was a nutrional supplement. On top of that the supplied "nutrional supplements" were always paid in cash, not check,money order, bank transfer or any other form of traceable transaction...CASH to the amount of $25,000 per year.

So you honestly think Bonds must know he's taking fertility drug for women?

[Skipaway]

In my mind, the most possible scenerio is that Bonds knew what he's taking, but they never talked about it directly.

It's just like bribes. When you hand over the money, you never say what's the money for. So both side would deny it's a bribe while knowing exactly what it is.

[Skipaway]

Bonds: just give me whatever you got. I want all the possible supplements.
Anderson: oh, take these and these and these and these and these and these.
Bonds: they are all legal? *wink* *wink*
Anderson: oh, definitely. *wink* *wink*

-----------------------

Giambi: give me your good stuff.
Anderson: I got this good clean stuff. *wink*
Giambi: cut the crap about being clean. I know what it is. I've bought a ton in Vegas before, but I heard you got the best steroids in town.
Anderson: sure I do.