CNN: Bonds was a habitual, knowing steroid abuser.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by 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.

No, you ban the players where you have a conclusive finding that they gambled on the game, broke baseball rules and with the understanding that banning said players will have no negative ramifications against baseball as a whole. Ironically, most of the players in that list above were - and still are - banned from the game.

Three from that list who are not banned are Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and Joe Wood. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were two of baseball's biggest stars. You don't get any bigger than those two. The Cobb/Speaker/Wood affair was a slam dunk for Landis.

Cobb was guilty. Speaker was guilty. Wood was guilty. Fans in the game at that time believed they were all guilty as much as fans today believe Barry Bonds is guilty. Joe Wood even admitted to Lawrence Ritter in tapes for The Glory of Their Times in the 1960s that they were all guilty.

Tangible harm to the game? How much tangible harm to the game is there when two of baseball's biggest stars in history and a popular former pitcher are charged with gambling crimes?

But instead of being banned, they walked away free. Scratch that. They walked away better than free for their era. They essentially became free agents during a time in which free agency was unheard of.

How? How? How does this happen? Simple. Baseball was loaded with corruption even at the top with fingers pointing directly to the owners. Among the corruption within ownership were owners breaking federal tax laws. Cobb had authoritative evidence and hard, concrete inside information about the corruption within baseball. He and Speaker hired some of the country's best attorneys and had counsel from notable US judges.

They took their evidence and locked it in a vault until granted an opportunity to discuss the ordeal with Landis. If Landis throws them out of the game, Cobb and Speaker break the levee with their evidence and attempt to land a crushing blow on baseball, far more crushing than anyone can imagine.

It was a slam dunk case; Cobb and Speaker had all the evidence they needed. Landis dared not to fight it, and he knew better than to fight it. Fighting it would stain a smear across the game unheard of for its time, and any other time, mostly because baseball would lose. Cobb and Speaker submitted their demands in exchange for not going after baseball with their evidence, and Landis obliged.

Full reinstatement with no penalties, a declaration of there being no finding and free agents heading into the 1927 season. Makes you wonder not if Cobb and Speaker would have won, but how badly they would have won.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

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

Landis banned several other players for gambling, and would have banned Speaker/Cobb/Leonard if he had felt that the evidence at hand warranted it.

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

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.

Note: Let me clarify that while I know it specifically says "15 pounds of muscle weight" I have my doubts as to the legitimacy of that claim. I guess it all depends on if it's their own words, or actually weaving in something they were told from someone who would know the difference.

It's easy to gain 15 pounds in 100 days, but damn near impossible to gain 15 pounds of muscle mass in that time span. It's very rare that anyone (naturally) would be able to put on more than 25-30 pounds of muscle mass in a year. Throw in some supplements (even things like Andro) and you'd be lucky to hit that area. If we're NOT talking just muscle.. sure, I'll buy it. But just muscle? Not even close.

The first six weeks is the fastest muscular building timespan. Giving Bonds the benefit of the doubt he could put seven, maybe eight pounds (of muscle, not weight) in that time frame. After that it's a much slower pace. To think that he could duplicate those results, and maybe have to improve upon them in the following 8 weeks is ridiculous.

I don't have any proof concerning muscle building rates at different ages. Well, more accurately I don't care to look more things up to get sources. However, 34 is very much on the downside of life when it comes to gaining muscle quickly.

Taking a decent shot at this.. someone with the body type of the Barry we used to know would probably need to gain 4 or 5 pounds of fat to get 15 pounds of body mass gained. If they're talking total weight.. then it's entirely possible to do naturally. Even at 34. Just because he looks ripped doesn't mean it's all muscle, ya know? Basically, I'm wondering if the writers said "He's cut, so it's muscle" and that was that.

I think I've included things for and against Barry here. I'm not out to get him, just saying that one of the two things parties is entirely screwed up on that topic.

Need some sources? Good. Here's some from an article I found which basically states most of the stuff I said above, with minimally different figures, about muscle gain. It even splits hairs about muscle gain and weight gain.

References
1. Kraemer, W.J., Adams, K., Cafarelli, E., Dudley, G.A., Dooly, C., Feigenbaum, M.S., Fleck, S.J., Franklin, B., Fry, A.C., Hoffman, J.R., Newton, R.U., Potteiger, J., Stone, M.H., Ratamess, N.A., & Triplett-McBride, T. (2002). American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 364-380
2. Paddon-Jones, D., Leveritt, M., Lonergan, A., & Abernethy, P. (2001). Adaptation to chronic eccentric exercise in humans: the influence of contraction velocity. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 285, 466-471
3. Volek, J.S., Duncan, N.D., Mazzetti, S.A., Staron, R.S., Putukian, M., Gomez, A.L, Pearson, D.R, Fink, W.J., & Kraemer WJ. (1999). Performance and muscle fiber adaptations to creatine supplementation and heavy resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 1147-1156
4. McLester, J.R. Jr., Bishop, P., & Guilliams, M.E. (2000). Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14, 273–281
5. Strauss, R.H., Lanese, R.R., & Malarkey, W.B. (1985). Weight loss in amateur wrestlers and its effect on serum testosterone levels. Journal of the American Medical Association, 254, 3337-3338
6. Forbes, G.B. (2000). Body fat content influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 904, 359-365
7. Van Etten, L.M., Verstappen, F.T., & Westerterp, K.R. (1994). Effect of body build on weight-training-induced adaptations in body composition and muscular strength. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 515-521

It's more fun if you look them up, and I'm not feeling cheery enough to just link the article.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by Slackker

Note: Let me clarify that while I know it specifically says "15 pounds of muscle weight" I have my doubts as to the legitimacy of that claim. I guess it all depends on if it's their own words, or actually weaving in something they were told from someone who would know the difference.

It's easy to gain 15 pounds in 100 days, but damn near impossible to gain 15 pounds of muscle mass in that time span. It's very rare that anyone (naturally) would be able to put on more than 25-30 pounds of muscle mass in a year. Throw in some supplements (even things like Andro) and you'd be lucky to hit that area. If we're NOT talking just muscle.. sure, I'll buy it. But just muscle? Not even close.

The first six weeks is the fastest muscular building timespan. Giving Bonds the benefit of the doubt he could put seven, maybe eight pounds (of muscle, not weight) in that time frame. After that it's a much slower pace. To think that he could duplicate those results, and maybe have to improve upon them in the following 8 weeks is ridiculous.

I don't have any proof concerning muscle building rates at different ages. Well, more accurately I don't care to look more things up to get sources. However, 34 is very much on the downside of life when it comes to gaining muscle quickly.

Taking a decent shot at this.. someone with the body type of the Barry we used to know would probably need to gain 4 or 5 pounds of fat to get 15 pounds of body mass gained. If they're talking total weight.. then it's entirely possible to do naturally. Even at 34. Just because he looks ripped doesn't mean it's all muscle, ya know? Basically, I'm wondering if the writers said "He's cut, so it's muscle" and that was that.

I think I've included things for and against Barry here. I'm not out to get him, just saying that one of the two things parties is entirely screwed up on that topic.

Need some sources? Good. Here's some from an article I found which basically states most of the stuff I said above, with minimally different figures, about muscle gain. It even splits hairs about muscle gain and weight gain.

References
1. Kraemer, W.J., Adams, K., Cafarelli, E., Dudley, G.A., Dooly, C., Feigenbaum, M.S., Fleck, S.J., Franklin, B., Fry, A.C., Hoffman, J.R., Newton, R.U., Potteiger, J., Stone, M.H., Ratamess, N.A., & Triplett-McBride, T. (2002). American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 364-380
2. Paddon-Jones, D., Leveritt, M., Lonergan, A., & Abernethy, P. (2001). Adaptation to chronic eccentric exercise in humans: the influence of contraction velocity. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 285, 466-471
3. Volek, J.S., Duncan, N.D., Mazzetti, S.A., Staron, R.S., Putukian, M., Gomez, A.L, Pearson, D.R, Fink, W.J., & Kraemer WJ. (1999). Performance and muscle fiber adaptations to creatine supplementation and heavy resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 1147-1156
4. McLester, J.R. Jr., Bishop, P., & Guilliams, M.E. (2000). Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14, 273–281
5. Strauss, R.H., Lanese, R.R., & Malarkey, W.B. (1985). Weight loss in amateur wrestlers and its effect on serum testosterone levels. Journal of the American Medical Association, 254, 3337-3338
6. Forbes, G.B. (2000). Body fat content influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 904, 359-365
7. Van Etten, L.M., Verstappen, F.T., & Westerterp, K.R. (1994). Effect of body build on weight-training-induced adaptations in body composition and muscular strength. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 515-521

It's more fun if you look them up, and I'm not feeling cheery enough to just link the article.

Good post.

I'm simply amazed at how many people here support this cheater. Amazed.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

Good post.

I'm simply amazed at how many people here support this cheater. Amazed.

I'm amazed at how many people consider something cheating that wasn't against the rules.

[jgross68]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

Good post.

I'm simply amazed at how many people here support this cheater. Amazed.

Just curious because I know you are, like me, a Cubs fan: How does this compare to the Sosa corked bat incident in your mind?

[Modern Relic]

Originally Posted by jgross68

Just curious because I know you are, like me, a Cubs fan: How does this compare to the Sosa corked bat incident in your mind?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm a Cubs fan too, so I'll jump in.

I think they're both similarly bad at some level, due to the players intent to gain an unfair advantage. However, from the research I've seen, I personally don't believe that corking a bat has nearly the effect on a baseball that steriods do, especially when the steriods are injected into an already extremely talented player like Bonds (or Sosa too, for that matter).

BTW, just curious. Who here thinks Bonds still uses HGH to this day? I know, I know...no proof of anything. Like I said, just curious.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by jgross68

Just curious because I know you are, like me, a Cubs fan: How does this compare to the Sosa corked bat incident in your mind?

In my mind, they both decieved the game, the fans, their opponents and their teammates by using elements that have been deemed illegal. At one time, I supported Sosa and his word that it was an accident. But after being witnessing (and enduring from a fan's standpoint) his subsequent character flaws, I am left with an impression of Sosa that has left a proponderance of evidence telling me that he was just as much of a cheat when he used that bat, as Bonds is for using steroids.

I think he was trying to spice things up for himself. I recall him being in a slump and coming off an injury. I now feel that he might have known the difference between his corked bat and his others. I can't say for sure. But if he knowingly used a corked bat, in order to gain some sort of advantage, then he's a cheater, as well.

I've even read about the suspicion that he also used steroids. If this is true, then Sammy has two strikes on him.

They bothed cheated the game. Enough so, that we are seeing a substantial fallout over it tells me something is amiss. So, to dismiss these transgressions as nothing, really harms the game of Baseball more than nipping the issues in the bud ever could.

If Bonds pulls a Giambi, then perhaps people will look at him a bit more favorably.

If you're asking me to compare, as in balancing them in terms of importance, I can't do that. Both cases would be breaking the rules of the game. If there are penalties for these situations as set into place by MLB, then whatever that penaly happens to be, should be enforced.

This of course hinges upon whether there is actual truth contained within this new book coming out. From the weight the media is giving it, it does sound like there is an element of truth in it. The writers are "respected journalists" (or is that an oxymoron?).

So, if it turns out Bonds gets caught cheating, like it appears, he needs to "do the time." IMHO, of course.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

From the weight the media is giving it, it does sound like there is an element of truth in it.

Either that or the PR people pushing the book are doing a great job. Not that it would take much effort to promote a sensationalist negative portrayal of Bonds to most idiot baseball writers.

The publishing company seems to be happy with the job their PR people are doing, since they've greatly increased the total books being printed for the first run. Not to imply that profiting off of sensationalist garbage journalism is anyone's motivation here.

I'm amazed that people don't realize that if there were actual evidence that Bonds used steroids, his role in baseball would be the least of his worries. See also: fines, imprisonment.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

If the book is as exhaustively researched and documented as it seems to be, Bonds is either guilty or he has one amazingly easy case for libel.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

If the book is as exhaustively researched and documented as it seems to be, Bonds is either guilty or he has one amazingly easy case for libel.

From what I can tell the exhaustive research consists of leaked grand jury testimony and FBI interviews, which everyone knew about 3 years ago, and interviews with people with an axe to grind. I'd be surprised if any real evidence were contained in the book aside from the things said under oath which we already knew about.

[jgross68]

Thanks for the responses, gentlemen. FWIW, I never believed Sammy's story that he accidentally grabbed the corked bat. He was in a slump, coming off a lengthy stay on the disabled list caused by the most violent sneeze in human history and was trying to get back into a groove. He got caught with incontrovertible proof and was suspended. End of story. The calls back then from some corners that he should be suspended for a year, banned for life and/or kept out of the Hall of Fame now seem pretty silly; they seemed pretty silly to me at the time. Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry cheated and got caught too. He tells some pretty funny stories about all the things he did to baseballs when he was pitching his way to 314 career wins.

I'm not going to sit here and say that since Bonds still has not tested positive for steroids under the conditions of Major League Baseball's policy that he's innocent or even not guilty (there is a difference - just ask OJ) but I think it has to be part of the debate. If cheating is cheating is cheating whether or not you get caught without any shadow of a doubt, well, there's a whole lotta 'splainin' to be done.

Anyway, to answer your question MR: I'd be surprised to find out that Bonds isn't still using whatever he can, legally or semi-legally to come back, hit a bunch of homers and pass every drug test that comes his way. Who knows what guys are going to be doing in 20 years to get an edge? Might make Bonds' pharmacological feats seem meek by comparison.

And AA I'd agree with you that Bonds would do well to go back and look at Giambi's approach when his illegally-leaked testimony came out.

As far as the book's/authors' veracity goes, please see "Armstrong, Lance" for an interesting counterpoint. I think there was a mini-discussion on that in this thread around 200 posts ago.

[jgross68]

...and since I had a little extra time this morning, here are couple more graphs showing the HR/BIP ratios for Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Bonds, McGwire and Sosa by age. Somebody asked for these; Sublimity or phenom, maybe? Anyway, the first graph shows all six players on the same panel which gets a little tough to read. The second graph shows each player on his own panel. The dotted lines represent the overall average HR/BIP for all six players and the first- and third-quartile regions to help show statistical outliers. Again these numbers are taken from raw totals; no adjustment for era, ballpark, league, etc. was done. Enjoy!

EDIT: I noticed that I goofed up Babe Ruth's BIP numbers, skewing his HR/BIP ratio much lower. Revised graphs are attached. My bad!

[billethius]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

From what I can tell the exhaustive research consists of leaked grand jury testimony and FBI interviews, which everyone knew about 3 years ago, and interviews with people with an axe to grind. I'd be surprised if any real evidence were contained in the book aside from the things said under oath which we already knew about.

So if the only evidence in the book is leaked grand jury testimony, then that testimony must show that he did indeed used steroids. If that's the case, why is there even any debate about whether or not he used them?

[Jason Moyer]

Mike Schmidt averaged 18.4 PA per HR over his career.

However, in the 4 seasons he played with Pete Rose and was popping amphetamines, he averaged 15.4 PA per HR with the first 3 seasons of that era being the best of his career (15.0, 13.6, 14.0). The year prior to Rose joining the Phillies, he averaged a horrible 29.3 PA per HR.

I think it's obvious that Mike Schmidt needs to be banned from the game of baseball, removed from the hall of fame, and his records removed from the books. Thank you.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by billethius

So if the only evidence in the book is leaked grand jury testimony, then that testimony must show that he did indeed used steroids. If that's the case, why is there even any debate about whether or not he used them?

Have you actually read the FBI interviews or the leaked testimony? The only things said about Bonds under oath are that he was given the Cream and the Clear and didn't like the way they made him feel. This is from the actual supplier who said that Giambi, Valerde, Santiago, etc were all taking them habitually and loving it, and that combined with the statements being both self-incriminating and taken under oath, I don't have a reason to refute them.

[billethius]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Have you actually read the FBI interviews or the leaked testimony? The only things said about Bonds under oath are that he was given the Cream and the Clear and didn't like the way they made him feel. This is from the actual supplier who said that Giambi, Valerde, Santiago, etc were all taking them habitually and loving it, and that combined with the statements being both self-incriminating and taken under oath, I don't have a reason to refute them.

No, I haven't read them and don't really have much interest in doing so. However, your assertion that there was nothing new in this book (because of the leaked testimony) and the widely held perception that this book finally shows that Bonds used steroids lead me to believe that all the old information (i.e. leaked testimony) showed that he used steroids and this book was just compiling all of that information into one place. Sorry for misreading or whatever, but hopefully you can see the logical jump I made - incorrectly it turns out.

[Malleus Dei]

"Barry Bonds Took Steroids, Reports Everyone Who Has Ever Watched Baseball"

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

[AnotherAlias]

Read an article that says if the writers of this book are correct about the time that Bonds' began using steroids, this Tribune writer posits that his production in terms of overall offensive numbers might have been greater had he not began a regimen of steroid use.

He asserts that Bonds suffered a few steroid related injuries (I'm very skeptical on his knowledge of whether Bonds' injuries were a side effect of steroid use. I'm not an expert, so I can't say) and without ever using steroids, perhaps he wouldn't have suffered those injuries.

This writer feels that Bonds never needed to bulk up and that if he had just stayed on the incredible pace he was on his offensive stats might be close to these, right now:
Hits = 2992
HRs = 680
RBI = 1979
games = 2936

Instead he's at:
Hits = 2742
HRs = 708
RBI = 1853
games = 2742

According to the writer, Bonds never had missed more than 22 games before 1999, averaging 147 games per season (would average over 150 if not for the strike season). He also states that Bonds might have endured injuries that quite possibly were directly related to his sudden muscle weight-gain.

We all know that Barry bulked up, adding 40-some pounds to his frame in a relatively short period of time. Then he suggests that Barry's knees couldn't handle the extra weight and he was injured, being forced to commit to no less than three knee surgeries. Other injuries, before the knee, his elbow and wrist only allowed him to play 102 games in 1999. (The writer doesn't address whether those injuries were steroid related or not)

So his assertion is that Barry never needed to bulk up and that the added weight damaged his knee. Without adding all of the weight his offensive numbers would still be fine.

Of course, it's all conjecture and we'll never know, unless Titor shows us how to use timelines.

I just found it to be, an interesting article.

[QuestGAV]

Meh. You could also argue that the injuries are a function of age and that his production was likely to have dropped off with age as well rather than continue climbing. That's a tough argument to support.