CNN: Bonds was a habitual, knowing steroid abuser.

[Luis_Rivera]

One thing that's missed in all this is the fact that as most of these players entered their mid-30's, home runs were increasing across the board from other factors as well.

[AnotherAlias]

In my mind, the bottom line is if he cheated, he needs to pay the piper...whatever that is.

A little slap on the wrist doesn't suffice. Just because he's Barry Bonds, he doesn't deserve preferential treatment.

Keeping him out of the HOF might be extreme.

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

Conversely, I don't see how you know they couldn't hit a baseball. One of the things most often cited when arguing the Bonds issue is that he broke in with the Pirates as a skinny kid and has grown enormous since then. That argument implies that Bonds got into steroids once his career began. Taking that into account, could he not hit the ball as a skinny dude? (Or pre-1998, for that matter?)

The fact is, we don't know. And that's the biggest wrench in this debate.

Nowhere did I imply they couldn't hit a baseball. I just said no one knows. Then you rebutted with.. the same thing I said.

And so I don't have to click reply again.. while baseball has never changed it's collective mind on the issues of game-fixing and gambling.. the consensus on those topics now is most certainly to a different degree than it was originally. I was wrong to say a century, and honestly I'm not sure why I did. Obviously they knew in 1919 at the latest, eh? =)

I agree that steroids should never be as high on the list as FIXING games, but betting on games is only slightly less overpenalized than smoking pot. Pete Rose bet on baseball? I don't care, at all. Pete Rose bet on his own games? I do care, because logic would say he tried to help his cause a bit - and therefore was fixing games. Perhaps someone can explain to me why just the betting is so terrible. I know, I know.. gambling has almost taken down baseball a couple times now.. I don't need the history lesson. Just a logical explanatoion. Perhaps it's viewed like insider trading? But really.. everyone knows just about all the athlete injury news. If Ray Lewis gets a papercut we'll hear about it. "Lewis Cuts Hand; Not Norman."

Edit: Explanatoion? Holy jeez, I'm not even correcting that.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by Slackker

Nowhere did I imply they couldn't hit a baseball. I just said no one knows. Then you rebutted with.. the same thing I said.

Yeah...

Originally Posted by abailey3313

The fact is, we don't know. And that's the biggest wrench in this debate.

I wasn't really debating what you said because there's no real fact out there to grip on. That's the obnoxious part of the steroids debate. Every rebuttal is based on suspicious and assumption and there's not a whole lot of fact to be had.

[jgross68]

Baseball Prospectus has a free article today that features an excerpt from Baseball Between the Numbers, specifically from the chapter "What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids?" Interestingly enough, Nate Silver used HR/650 PA as a basis for his analysis...

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

In my mind, the bottom line is if he cheated, he needs to pay the piper...whatever that is.

A little slap on the wrist doesn't suffice. Just because he's Barry Bonds, he doesn't deserve preferential treatment.

Keeping him out of the HOF might be extreme.

Just because he's Barry Bonds, he doesn't deserve to be treated worse than anyone else, either. Has Randy Velarde been suspended for steroid use?

[darkcloud4579]

How is Barry Bonds using something that wasn't banned in the sport at the time and was used by many other players, any worse than say, white players before blacks being allowed to play, having records that are supposedly "the best" but naturally...really weren't since some of the best players were banned from playing on the big stage?

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

How is Barry Bonds using something that wasn't banned in the sport at the time and was used by many other players, any worse than say, white players before blacks being allowed to play, having records that are supposedly "the best" but naturally...really weren't since some of the best players were banned from playing on the big stage?

I am not responsible for the segregationist policies of America in the first half of the 20th century. Barry Bonds is responsible for ingesting substances that are and were illegal according to the laws of the country in which he lives and plays. Therefore, I can hold Barry Bonds responsible for the bad things he did even if the rest of your argument made any sense at all.

[QuestGAV]

Dola,

I heard a bit on the radio today about something that's probably more troubling to Bonds from a legal standpoint than anything related to steroids. Apparently there were years for which Bonds listed his income on his tax statements as being his salary from the Giants. No memorabilia, no appearance fees, no investments, no advertisements.

[Green & Gold Heart]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46188

"Everyone in our front office has known about Bonds since the 2001 season," said San Francisco-area accounts-receivable secretary Mindy Harris of McCullers and Associates, Ltd. "People in our ninth-floor office, too, and all seven branch offices. None of us were sure exactly which kind of steroids he was on, but we were pretty sure it was the kind that causes you to gain 30 pounds of muscle in one offseason, get injured more easily, become slow-footed, shave your head to conceal your thinning hair, lash out at the media and fans, engage in violent and abrupt mood swings, grow taut tree-trunk-like neck muscles, expand your hatband by six inches, and hit 73 home runs in a single season."

"Come to think of it, we're all fairly certain he's on all of them," Harris added.

When reached for comment, Bonds insisted that he "[doesn't] have time to deal with all these charges."

"I'm not going to respond to these 228 million allegations," Bonds said. "I don't care what every last person in the entire world thinks. As long as my fans believe me, that's the most important thing."

[darkhorse]

David Pinto, at www.BaseballMusings.com , sent up the following bit yesterday at his great site.


I want to point out this passage from Game of Shadows as a reason I'm not comfortable with what I've read so far (emphasis added):

Bonds worked harder in the gym during the 1998 off-season than he had in years. Wearing black gloves, pants and a sleeveless T, he showed up at World Gym day after day, Anderson at his side. The trainer talked quietly to his famous client or just sat and stared as Bonds went through the monotonous routine of pumping iron. Marvelously the Winstrol eliminated the pain and fatigue of training. And the results were equally marvelous to behold.

For the first time in his life, Bonds was buff. He often stood in front of a mirror, laughing, saying, "How do I look?" By spring training, his weight had increased from around 210 to 225, and almost all of the gain was rock-hard muscle. When he showed up a day late at the Giants' spring training camp in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1999, angry at the club for refusing to renegotiate his contract, the change in Bonds's physique was startling. Around the Giants, they took to referring to Bonds as "the Incredible Hulk." When Bonds took batting practice, he was driving the ball farther than he ever had before. To teammates, writers and fans in Scottsdale that spring, and especially to Giants management, Bonds's appearance and performance raised a fundamental question: What in hell had he been doing in the off-season?

Sportswriters didn't press the question. Most attributed the changes in Bonds's body to a heavy workout regimen, as though a 34-year-old man could gain 15 pounds of muscle in 100 days without drugs. The Giants, from owner Peter Magowan to manager Dusty Baker, had no interest in learning whether Bonds was using steroids, either. Although it was illegal to use the drugs without a prescription, baseball had never banned steroids. Besides, by pursuing the issue, the Giants ran the risk of poisoning their relationship with their touchy superstar -- or, worse, of precipitating a drug scandal the year before the opening of their new ballpark, where Bonds was supposed to be the main gate attraction.

It's a case of, "Look at him, he must be using steroids!" But read what Jerry Crasnick wrote about Jason Schmidt today (again, emphasis added):

Giants starter Jason Schmidt changed his routine and spent part of his offseason at the Athletes Performance Institute in Tempe, Ariz. He played catch in the mornings with Boston's Curt Schilling, took a crash course in nutrition and hit the weights diligently enough to add 20 pounds, while simultaneously shedding body fat.

...

Schmidt, 33, has been one of Major League Baseball's most reliable starting pitchers in recent years. Since 2003, he ranks third in the game in strikeouts (624), fifth in wins (47) and 10th in ERA (3.24). His .712 winning percentage in that span is second best in the majors behind Minnesota's Johan Santana.

And Schmidt says he doesn't use steroids, although there have been rumors:

"You don't want to hear stuff like that in your own clubhouse," Schmidt said. "It makes you realize that people don't really know you. That's what made me mad. I felt like, 'These people should know what I stand for and what I'm about -- that I wouldn't do something like that.'

So on one hand, we are told that you can't gain 15 pounds of muscle in 100 days without drugs, but Jason Schmidt gains 20 pounds and insists he's clean. Which is it?

There's plenty of other evidence that links Bonds to steroids in the book. But that sentence is shoddy. It's speculation presented as fact, and things like that hurt the author's argument.

[sporr]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

So on one hand, we are told that you can't gain 15 pounds of muscle in 100 days without drugs, but Jason Schmidt gains 20 pounds and insists he's clean. Which is it?

There's plenty of other evidence that links Bonds to steroids in the book. But that sentence is shoddy. It's speculation presented as fact, and things like that hurt the author's argument.

Agreed. Personally, I don't think 15 pounds in 100 days is that outrageous. So, he gained about a pound per week of muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat does, so with the right workout I could see it. Not disputing anything else in the book, but I do agree on this excerpt.

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by sporr

Agreed. Personally, I don't think 15 pounds in 100 days is that outrageous. So, he gained about a pound per week of muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat does, so with the right workout I could see it. Not disputing anything else in the book, but I do agree on this excerpt.

Yeah it's that kind of circumstantial stuff that doesn't have a place in a serious discussion of the issue. "OMG Barry Bonds has a big head and hits home runs!!!11!" is meaningless in the absence of the reams of documentation and his own grand jury testimony. So why bring it up?

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by sporr

Agreed. Personally, I don't think 15 pounds in 100 days is that outrageous. So, he gained about a pound per week of muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat does, so with the right workout I could see it. Not disputing anything else in the book, but I do agree on this excerpt.

And the fact that they linked Bonds' age to his development is a bit shoddy as well. Implying that because someone is 34-years-old they are somehow incapable of adding 15 pounds of muscle weight just doesn't sit right with me. Even if there is proof (I'm not sure if there is) that people tend to add muscle weight at a signifigantly lower rate around that age, does that mean it's flat out impossible to get it done? Realistically, 34-years-old isn't over the hill.

[sporr]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

Realistically, 34-years-old isn't over the hill.

I sure hope not! I'm almost there!

[sebastian0622]

I think if Schmidt gained a lot of pure muscle weight, then went out and shattered all kinds of long-held records performing far beyond levels he'd ever achieved before at the age of 38+, it would be a better comparison.

For Barry, it's not just any one circumstance that condemns him, like weight gain. It's all of the various unheard-of-type-things rolled into one.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

One thing that's missed in all this is the fact that as most of these players entered their mid-30's, home runs were increasing across the board from other factors as well.

Exactly!

When Maris broke the record it was an expansion year and same for McGwire.
Three expansion teams and newere ballparks probably have more to do with all the home runs than any drug a player might have took.

Its interesting that Maris went from 61 hrs to about 33 like Bonds went from 73 to 40 something. I am sure other players have too.

But we probaly not only had pitchers that didnt belong in the majors during the 2 expansion periods but fielders as well.
Maybe MLB exapnded too soon after them 1993 expansion.

Has anyone ever had expansion in that short amount of time when using ootp. If so did you see an increase or decrease in hitting totals.

Might be interesting to look at totals 5 yrs before each expansion, the expansion year, and five years after and then compare what a player did relative to what the league did and then compare the players from different eras. Instead of just comparing Bond's totals for 10 years to Hank Aaron's

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

For Barry, it's not just any one circumstance that condemns him, like weight gain. It's all of the various unheard-of-type-things rolled into one.

Exactly.

[DamnYankees]

By the way, I'd like to try to answer the argument that "we can't just go after Barry - tons of people were doing this stuff! He was just part of a culture!"

Here's an analogy that has to do with gambling. Don't just shunt it aside due to the "gambling was illegal, steroids are not" thing, since we can debate that, but look at the basic argument as it regards going after one person/group when there is a larger problem.

In Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract, James lists the following players as having very good cases that they were involved in gambling and/or fixing games, in alphabetical order:

Rube Benton, Bill Burns, Paul Carter, Hal Chase, Eddie Cicotte, Ty Cobb, Cozy Dolan, Phil Douglas, Jean Dubuc, Heppy Felsh, Ray Fisher, Frankie Frisch, Chick Gandil, Joe Gedeon, Joe Harris, Claude Hendrix, Buck Herzog, Joe Jackson, Bill James, Benny Kauff, George Kelly, Dikkie Kerr, Dutch Leonard, Fred McMullin, Len Magee, Billy Maharg, Fred Merkle, Jimmy O'Connell, Jimmy Ring, Pants Rowland, Gene Paulette, Swede Risberg, Tris Speaker, Buck Weaver, Lefty Williams, Smokey Joe Wood, Ross Youngs, Heinie Zimmerman.

Some of these players were banned for life (The Black Sox). Some were found not guilty, but we also likely are missing the names of many people who were guilty in throwing games, so that likely balances out. James admits this is a far from exhaustive list of people who were involved in fixing games.

What's the point? The point is all these men (for the most part) committed the act of gambling in baseball, of possibly throwing games. But who are the ones we punish? We punish the ones who did the most tangible harm to the game. Yes, Jean Dubuc committed the same act of throwing a baseball game as Chick Gandil, but Gandil's mattered more because of the context of when and where he did it. So we punish those who did the most harm, even if others did take the same action. It makes a statement as to the nature of the act.

It's the same with steroids. Yes, Bonds may have done the same thing Alex Sanchez did, but Sanchez' actions did not harm baseball the same way Bonds' did. You might say "so you're punishing Bonds for being a better ballplayer?"

Yes. We punished the 1919 White Sox extremely harshly due to the fact that they were great, didn't we? If they hadn't been great, they wouldn't have thrown the World Series - they were, so they did, which led to great harm. They had the ability to have their actions affect baseball infinitely moreso than any other players due to their skills.

Barry Bonds, due to his greatness, affected the game more than Alex Sanchez. Due to Bonds skill, he has the ability to surpass Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron thanks to steroids. His greatness makes the crime much worse.

We don't always simply ban the actions - we ban those who did the action in the most harmful way to make a general point about the action. It's not unprecedented, and it's not insane. It's precedent.

So, this isn't an argument for banning Bonds. It's isn't an argument for stripping his records. It's merely a refutation and an argument against those who would say "he just did what everyone else was doing."

He did more harm - that's what matters.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

We punished the 1919 White Sox extremely harshly due to the fact that they were great, didn't we?

If they hadn't been great, they wouldn't have thrown the World Series

Ehh, the White Sox probably would have lost the 1919 World Series if they had played to their abilities. The Reds had a better team.