Feds: Bonds trainer admits giving steroids to baseball players

i fear for giambi and pujols.

I fear for Sammy.

but i have unhealthily blind faith in Bonds unless he's proven guilty of steroid abuse. he has always supported drug testing in baseball and in my mind, is not a dishonest person. in 2002 when he hit 73 HRs, he was not as cut (ie, he was downright chubby) as he was in 2003 ("only" 45 HRs). Much of his hitting prowess can be attributed to things not related to muscle mass (vision, patience, batspeed, memory of pitchers/pitches, etc.)

I mean who knows, though? People can indeed bulk up without steroids. But then again....arghh.

It's gonna be interesting when it all comes out.

Sosa always was strong, but as Harry Caray said LONG before anyone else that Sammy could be a hall of famer if he could lay off pitches out of the strike zone.

The year round professional training has changed many players careers. Very few players were training even in the 80s like many stars do today.

Add the weight training, the smaller ball parks, Denver, 20 to 40 pitchers in the league from expansion that probably shouldn't be in the majors and you get guys like Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and others hitting HRs like no tomorrow.

Look at someone like Bret Boone, who is a good player, but I very much doubt would hit with anywhere near the power he does today if he played in the 70s.

Could you imagine what guys like Mike Schmidt or Dave Parker would have done with training like today?

Put it this way, Bonds year was extraordinary, but I think his 73 is somewhat comprable to George Foster hitting 52 in 1977 or Fielder hitting 51 in 1990.

Bonds -73 (next closest Sosa 64)
Foster -52 (next closest Burroughs 41)
Fielder -51 (next closest McGwire 39)

oh what a time that was for him.

then he sucked

"The bottom line is that I did purchase vitamins from that company, being out there and working out with Barry Bonds," Sheffield said. "Besides that, I don't know what else can come with that. I've been an honorable guy. I've been outspoken about testing guys. And anybody that wants me to say I'll take the challenge of taking a test, I'll be the first guy up there."

Bonds welcomes drug testing in baseball -- ``They can test me every day if they choose to,'' said Bonds, who says he's right about his 228 playing weight.

His neck looks a lot thinner.

didn't that used to be larry walker?

note:
bonds is 18/50 (.360 BA, 7 HRs, 3 2Bs = .840 SLG) w/ 5 BBs (.411 OBP, 1.251 OPS) vs. neagle

and 3/9 (.333 BA) w/ 2 BBs (.455 OBP, .899 OPS) vs. wendell

some background:
neagle also hasn't had an ERA under 4.50 in the past 4 seasons (including an Estes-esqe 7.90 last year) and got charged with a DUI 5 months ago.

wendell got into a near-scuffle with his hometeam fans while struggling last season with the phillies prompting his journey to colorado.

Well Turk, ever wonder why you're the type of player that hasn't earned the respect?

because he faced too many juiced up batters?

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:r496T6qgwYAJ:philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/news/images/081903-turk.jpg

The implications are as clear as the fear in Turk Wendell's eyes when Barry Bonds steps to the plate.

Bonds is big, strong and lethal at the plate, Bonds takes steroids, Bonds is a fraud, Bonds' records should be wiped from the books and Bonds should just go to hell because we never liked him in the first place anyway.

Wendell -- a man who wears a chain of animal teeth around his neck, mind you -- says Bonds is a steroid user. Wendell may be an active player, but he's just the latest to join the Bonds-bashing bandwagon. The Bonds-on-steroids issue isn't about presumption of innocence before guilt. It isn't about steroids. It's not about putting an "asterisk" next to Bonds' 73 home runs. I don't even think it's an issue of race.

It's really about another chance for the media to jump all over a man they love to hate and a player they love to discredit.

Food for thought: Barry Bonds is listed at 6-2, 228 pounds. Brett Favre is listed at 6-2, 225. I'm sure both totals come in a little light.

Maybe it's time to blow up all the Bonds criticism.

Yet, as one columnist wrote a couple week ago, after suggesting the Bonds "story" can no longer be ignored: "It's the drugs, stupid. It's always been the drugs."

More food for thought: You know how many times Bonds has hit 50 home runs in a season? Once. You know how many times he's led his league in home runs? Twice. You know how many writers suggest Bonds is the smartest hitter in the game, that he knows which pitch is coming, that his eyes and patience allow him to wait for exactly the pitch he can drive out of the park, that what makes him superman isn't all the home runs he hits, but the way he does it, despite drawing all those walks, which puts him on base a must-be-a-misprint more than 50 percent of the time? Very few.

But of course, nobody likes Bonds anyway -- writers or opposing pitchers. So bring him down when you can. Say that he's nothing without the drugs, nothing but a cranky, sour SOB, that deep in his soul he's not this good, because nobody can really be this good, nobody can put up these softball numbers in the major freakin' leagues.

Freak? Yes, Bonds is a freak.

Steroids? Maybe. Or maybe it's just a man who regulates his body to optimal performance by staying away from those In-N-Out burgers that Jason Giambi craves so much. We don't know, and surely Turk Wendell doesn't either. Bonds has sculpted himself to his current frame from a lean 185 pounds as a rookie, and thus must be using steroids, as writers and talk-jock hosts love to point out? Means nothing. Look at Henry Aaron. When young, he was built exactly like a young Barry, long and lithe; by the time he was hitting No. 715, he had expanded and added bulk. All I know is that pitchers feared both Henrys.

Asterisks next to all those records? Don't even bother humoring us with that.

Race? Maybe, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

__________________________

A few good points, but pretty pro-Bonds rah rah. I really have come around to earlnash's logic above...

Bonds breaking the record with Sosa on his heels... even Sosa (whoops was that bat corked?) has doubts about Bonds.

Bonds has bulked up into a very big man, all they have to do is run a clip of him playing with the Pirates in the early 90s and it is very evident.

That being said, he was a very good hitter 10 years ago, that hit for average and power (hitting 25 HRs in 90, is probably like hitting 35-40 today) before he bulked up.

Whether or not he has had additional illegal chemicals that helped that bulk up, I don't know and I very much doubt that it will ever be proven without a doubt either way. It is just as possible that he gained that bulk through just working his ass off. The guy has been at this high leve for a few years, if it was 'roids, eventually that stuff breaks you down hard, which hasn't been the case with Bonds.

I think the four expansion teams bringing in more shitty pitchers in the league and the complete breakdown of the finances of the game for the majority of the league has as much to do with the inflated hitting stats as anything. The more I think about it, the salary differences between clubs at the top and bottom is probably as important as anything, as certain teams pretty much have meatball pitching outside of maybe a couple of guys.

I still think that if you put someone like Schmidt or Willie Mays or even Babe Ruth playing in todays game, they would be right up there with someone like Bonds, perhaps even more impressive.

(Yay I scooped it!)

"Barry Bonds does something at the plate that no other human does and it has nothing to do with steroids. He has superior baseball skills. He's superior with his eyes and his ability to recognize pitches."

http://www.asstastic.org/images/sosa_sox.jpg http://www.asstastic.org/images/bonds_pirates.jpg

I'm no doctor, but I can't help but notice that other people don't go through a dramatic head size increase in their 30s...

http://www.asstastic.org/images/griffey.jpg

The whole house of cards is starting to come down, and I'm loving it. Just watch those power numbers continue to drop this year.

  Homer: Please please please, I want to make the team.  [catches Roger Clemens]
          Clemens, did I make the team?
   Roger: You sure did!
   Homer: I did!  Woo-hoo!  Woo-hoo!  In your face, Strawberry!
   Roger: Wait a minute, are you Ken Griffey, Jr.?
   Homer: No.
   Roger: Sorry.  Didn't mean to get your hopes up.

Wasn't Steve Sax the 2nd baseman in that episode? Sweet crap, that's awful.

sort of related: in bob ryan's column in todays boston globe johnny damon all but says jason giambi has used 'roids in the past.

# Player           Pos How recruited              Fate
- ---------------- --- -------------------------- ------------------------
1 Steve Sax         2B playing at jazz club       six life sentences
2 Wade Boggs        3B                            punched out by Barney
3 Darryl Strawberry RF                            pulled for pinch hitter
4 Jose Canseco      LF baseball card convention   saving burning house
5 Don Mattingly     1B washing dishes at home     kicked off team
6 Ken Griffey, Jr.  CF                            overdose of nerve tonic
7 Mike Scioscia     C  deer hunting               radiation overdose
8 Ozzie Smith       SS touring Graceland          lost in Mystery Spot
9 Roger Clemens     P                             thinks he's a chicken

brilliant.

(and by the way, ralph wiley is only defending bonds because he's black)

as for professional help: don't worry about me; the mirror's your guy for that.

bnw is on point about Bonds v. McGuire, but come on: both were juiced sluggers in pursuit of a famous record, but if I had a nickel for everyone who's given McGuire a free pass while talking about "oh load up the asterisk machine for Bonds right now", I'd have a lot of money.

what?? that was a reference to the wiley article. in fact that whole post was; you seemed to take it a bit too personally so maybe you missed that. (though the "yes you" part was directed at anyone currently doing figure 8s to defend bonds, which of course means it was directed at anyone currently defending bonds, so yes in that instance i was talking to you, pretty boy, but it wasn't really meant literally or personally, just to imply that you and your ilk are OBVIOUSLY FUCKED UP PSYCHOS)

and there are GREAT BIG HUGE differences between mcgwire and bonds other than the skin color and by NO MEANS do i feel like i should have to get into them here.

1. yeah I know that you were focusing on Wiley's justification, which I didn't buy either, but since you are obviously only worried about Bonds here it's clear that you don't think that McGuire did anything wrong, so it's putting Bonds in a camp that no one else goes into, which proves that there's something to Wiley's reasoning after all.

2. I'd actually be very interested to hear what John and bnw think about what those differences are between Bonds and McGwire. Is it just that Bonds doesn't have a good relationship with the media? Oh, wait, you don't feel like you have to get into it here, never mind.

3. The myth of McGwire's charisma is as funny as the myth of Bonds being some kind of evil villain. This dichotomy alone is enough to make me believe Wiley.

Look, everyone, here's what I think is important in Wiley's article: you can be as muscled-up as you want and it still doesn't guarantee you hitting 70 or 73 home runs in a year. That's experience and practice and eyesight and timing as well as muscle. I do think Bonds has been "busted" on no proof at all; actually, so has McGwire, even by me. Whether or not that the Bonds (or McGwire, or Sosa!) issue(s) has to do with race is just a matter of opinion.

But John, I'll let your overheated rhetoric be my best defense here.

i really have no idea how this descended this far; i was just calling some dude on twisting the issue beyond recognition and then weakly playing the race card, now i'm an evil troll! i think it all went wrong when i said "fanboy", i've noticed that word has an oddly cutting quality. or do i just need to use more winky faces or something?

wtf. i didn't get the memo.

The relationship with the media is a huge part of it. But then, that term is also a bit of a cop-out and it offers the media as an easy scapegoat, i.e. how Bonds comes across to baseball fans is being warped by a racist media.

We could get into the whole debate about what type of personalities are viewed negatively by media/fans and how they relate to race relations. Do I think that's part of what's going on with Bonds? Yes. Are there counter-examples of black athletes being embraced for their accomplishments? Yes. Even black athletes that stir up controvery? Yes. Are there examples of white being viewed as villains based on their personalities? Yes. All that points to something beyond Bonds' blackness causing him to be seen in a negative fashion. I'd say it's because he comes across a pompous jerk via his comments to the media. And now you can tag BALCO suspicions on him as well.

Elliott Almond reports, “The lead federal investigator in the BALCO drug scandal targeted Barry Bonds and his personal trainer after seeing them often in the same Burlingame gym where he was a member, according to an April 9 Playboy magazine article posted on its Web site Monday.”

www.playboy.com/magazine/big_guy/

2004 Spring Training HomeRuns/AtBat:

Bonds = 4/17 or 23.53%
Ja. Giambi = 2/34 or 5.88%
Sheffield = 1/28 or 3.57%

2001-2003 Regular Season HomeRuns/AtBat:
Bonds = 337/1269 or 26.56%
Ja. Giambi = 120/1615 or 120/1615 or 7.43%
Sheffield = 100/1583 or 6.32%

So I guess it comes down to if you still think these guys are still juicing... Sheffield seems to dropped off the most, but Barry is still hitting balls out of the park, in the face of his critics.

i think you'd have to be nuts to not see that giambi has quit; with sheffield and bonds i have no clue, although sheffield's tenacity in denying that he was currently on them (the whole "you can test me right now" thing) MIGHT'VE been a clue, but then he probably knew the union would never allow it so it's probably safe to throw that episode out the window.

and i think they were busted.

http://www.cincypost.com/sports/1998/threat092398.html

Threat against McKeon disclosed

By Jeff Horrigan, Post staff reporter

When Jack McKeon entertained the international media this month in St. Louis with tales about how callers to his voice mail were imploring him to help ''heal the nation'' by pitching to Mark McGwire, he was withholding word of a far more intriguing call.

The Reds manager disclosed on Tuesday that death threats were phoned in before the Sept. 4-6 series, prompting Major League Baseball director of security Kevin Hallinan to warn him in the dugout at Busch Stadium.

''He came up to talk to me in the dugout and asked, "Where's your family?' '' McKeon said. ''I said, "In North Carolina.' ''

Hallinan wouldn't disclose where, when or from whom the threat might have come, but he thought it was serious enough to merit a warning. McKeon said he was told that other members of the Reds were also threatened because the Reds hadn't been giving McGwire good pitches to hit during their previous series with the St. Louis Cardinals.

''I think it was just somebody having some fun, trying to get me to pitch to McGwire,'' McKeon said. ''It just so happened that we pitched to him in the series, but that wasn't the reason.''

McGwire went 1-for-10 in the series with two unintentional walks and six strikeouts. His only hit was homer No. 60 off Dennis Reyes on Sept. 5. He finished the season series vs. the Reds with a .107 batting average (3-for-28) with the one homer, two RBI, 15 walks (five intentional) and 10 strikeouts.

McKeon said that he'd received idle threats during previous managerial stints and thus wasn't overly concerned.

''I just said, "I hope he's a bad shot,' '' McKeon quipped.

Hallinan was unavailable for comment Tuesday night. Reds general manager Jim Bowden refused to discuss what the club knew about the matter.

Not all of McKeon's calls have been negative. He received voice mail from a New York Mets fan on Monday, thanking him for sweeping the Chicago Cubs and giving his club the advantage in the wild-card race.

Publication date: 09-23-98

**********************************************

Bonds hit another one today (unfortunately, not off Turk Wendell)... 5 HRs in 20 ABs = .250!!!

He could catch Ruth this year, like it or not.

-- j.q. higgins (batigo2...), April 3rd, 2004 11:04 AM. (later) (admin)

Barry Bonds
1999 HRs/ABs = 34/355 = 9.58%
2000 HRs/ABs = 49/480 = 10.21%
2001 HRs/ABs = 73/476 = 15.34%
2002 HRs/ABs = 46/403 = 11.41%
2003 HRs/ABs = 45/390 = 11.54%

11.54% > 11.41%

the "muscle doesn't give you home runs" bunch of bonds apologists can go away now. as can anyone suggesting what he put on post-1998 (in his mid-late 30s) was anything other than solid muscle. this kind of thing just doesn't happen. either bonds is the lone exception in the 100+ years of baseball history, or he was on steroids. that's all the evidence i need. unfortunately, it still leaves room for doubt. hopefully he was careless, these tests will come up postitive, and we can get this whole "martyring" thing over with.

hmmm... you should go to more fitness centers and gyms. this is not uncommon phenomena. many people begin working out in their 30s and gain plenty of muscle mass, this is very common in the "midlife crisis" set esp. in southern california.

either bonds is the lone exception in the 100+ years of baseball history, or he was on steroids.

John, I know you've mentioned before your tendency not to put much weight on statistics, but you may be interested in the following:

Barry Bonds
1999 - 34 HRs - 9.58% HR/AB
2000 - 49 HRs - 10.21% HR/AB
2001 - 73 HRs - 15.34% HR/AB
2002 - 46 HRs - 11.41% HR/AB
2003 - 45 HRs - 11.54% HR/AB

Babe Ruth
1925 - 25 HRs - 6.96% HR/AB
1926 - 47 HRs - 9.49% HR/AB
1927 - 60 HRs - 11.11% HR/AB
1928 - 54 HRs - 10.07% HR/AB
1929 - 46 HRs - 9.22% HR/AB

Roger Maris
1959 - 16 HRs - 3.70% HR/AB
1960 - 39 HRs - 7.82% HR/AB
1961 - 61 HRs - 10.34% HR/AB
1962 - 33 HRs - 5.59% HR/AB
1963 - 23 HRs - 7.73% HR/AB

Mickey Mantle
1959 - 31 HRs - 5.73% HR/AB
1960 - 40 HRs - 7.59% HR/AB
1961 - 54 HRs - 10.51% HR/AB
1962 - 30 HRs - 7.96% HR/AB
1963 - 15 HRs - 8.72% HR/AB

A few more modern samples just for comparison:

Mark McGwire
1996 - 52 HRs - 12.29% HR/AB
1997 - 58 HRs - 10.74% HR/AB
1998 - 70 HRs - 13.75% HR/AB
1999 - 65 HRs - 12.48% HR/AB
2000 - 32 HRs - 13.56% HR/AB

Sammy Sosa
1996 - 40 HRs - 8.03% HR/AB
1997 - 36 HRs - 5.61% HR/AB
1998 - 66 HRs - 10.26% HR/AB [McGwire = 70 HRs]
1999 - 63 HRs - 10.08% HR/AB
2000 - 50 HRs - 8.28% HR/AB
2001 - 64 HRs - 11.09% HR/AB [Bonds = 73 HRs]
2002 - 49 HRs - 8.81% HR/AB
2003 - 40 HRs - 7.74% HR/AB

Brady Anderson
1994 - 12 HRs - 2.65% HR/AB
1995 - 16 HRs - 2.89% HR/AB
1996 - 50 HRs - 8.64% HR/AB
1997 - 18 HRs - 3.05% HR/AB
1998 - 18 HRs - 3.76% HR/AB

Luis Gonzalez
1999 - 26 HRs - 4.23% HR/AB
2000 - 31 HRs - 5.02% HR/AB
2001 - 57 HRs - 9.36% HR/AB
2002 - 28 HRs - 5.34% HR/AB
2003 - 26 HRs - 4.49% HR/AB

Do you think Maris was on the juice? How about Mantle?

1994 - 18 HRs - 4.43% HR/AB
1995 - 26 HRs - 4.94% HR/AB
1996 - 40 HRs - 7.33% HR/AB
1997 - 26 HRs - 5.35% HR/AB
1998 - 29 HRs - 6.42% HR/AB

as i said, there's room for doubt, if you really want it, and lots of people do. it's just _probable_ that he's on steroids (and i think even you'd admit that). so i'd like to see him get caught, so we can get this out of the way. would i then also like to see him magically proven innocent? no. i don't really like him.

for example, how would you explain the development of his swing? he took a long looping swing and in the late 90s, turned it into a very compact tight and fast minimal approach. a lot of wasted movement was eliminated converting more energy into only the essential elements of generating power.

and during this surge of increased slugging, he also dramatically increased his selectivity of pitches and his batting average swelled enormously. these are factors that are not affected by muscle mass. steroids will not assist you in seeing the ball out of a pitchers hand nor trigger your ability to remember pitch selection.

and my biggest frustration is to what degree to steroids boost a players power? this isn't a case of a guy getting a few extra dozen feet per swing... you've all seen the homeruns he's hit the last few years.... he has absolutely destroyed balls some 400-450 feet. people think "oh bonds is starting to hit longer homeruns..." that is completely untrue. long booming shots are something he's done his entire career (yes, even skinny little 190 pound bonds hit a 455 footer in pittsburgh his 13th game of his career), it's just that the frequency that was increased.

also, look at caminiti, canseco, mcgwire (uh... maris?)... careers ended abruptly due to injury and wear and tear. does Bonds show any sign of slowing down? is he off the juice... or not? do you really think the way he's handled himself with regard to all the controversy that he appears to be guilty? has Bonds NEVER told it straight, to the point, and like it is?

so yeah, there are a lot of people that can easily swallow mantle and more importantly maris' sudden, dramatic and short-lived slugging power (which broke a long-standing "legendary" record from a pre-integrated, pitching fatigue plagued era). yet bonds--who has shown tremendous talent and longevity for 16 years (of which the last 4 are what's at stake here)--is immediately suspect. how about the unbelievable workout discipline (4-5 hours a day in the offseason in the weight room... try it out john, let's see how you look after a 3-4 years), and technology (he and sheffield use a space-age swing resistance machine in palo alto) that a lot of players throughout history have not taken advantage of for various (and obvious) reasons.

anyways, i'm totally rambling... but media driven POVs like Higgins quoted above "reduced productivity of the chief suspects" which are completely false when applied to Bonds (yet people seem to be targeting soley Bonds here) is unfair and unfounded journalism.

i'm just going to point out that mantle did not have a short-lived power surge (and didn't even lift weights) and that, while maris did, it was at in his mid-twenties, not his late thirties, and did not follow a massive bulking up. there's just no parallel with bonds there, and there isn't with anyone else, either - he stands completely alone.

it's a fact that as players age they walk more, and, i'd guess, become more selective as well (as opposed to just sitting on more pitches), but that can't really explain it either. a shorter swing (and are you sure about this? i'd always thought bonds was famous for choking up) + smarter approach might translate to a higher batting average, but i don't really see it adding home runs. that takes muscle. if you're a LHH in pac bell/sbc, it takes a LOT of muscle.

And, for the record, uber strength doesn't always = homeruns. It's all about making solid contact. Hyper-buff dude Gabe Kapler is the primo example where muscles don't mean shit unless you know how to flex them. Also, Wade Boggs - rumor has it (and I don't think this is even a rumor) that, during BP, he'd be cranking homers all over the place. I think I heard the same thing about Ichiro, too.

and looking at kaplers photo last night i wouldn't be surprised if there was some hgh in his workout regimen.

check out what ichiro and wade boggs did in actual games. the idea that strength doesn't help hit home runs is laughable to me. i mean, jesus, look at EVERY home run hitter ever. and like wade boggs couldn't make good contact? this is a guy who hit .350 + 50 doubles a year, as i recall.

i mean, if you really think it's a coincidence that bonds OPS shot up 100 points after a big bulk up(check the slides upthread again), and 200 points the next year, raise your hands. cuz i'm having lots of trouble believing you guys are serious when you suggest it didn't matter.

otto, a lot of people think kap is on roids. i never said you didn't have to be good to have a 1.300 OPS.

I'm sure not saying that strength has nothing to do w/ going deep - if strength meant jack shit, then we'd have Bonds hitting consultant David Eckstein going yard 20+ times a year. Instead, we have Mr. Bonds chatting up choker-upper Eckstein for hitting advice, which he puts to use in his swing, which (when coupled with all the things that gygax! mentions in his uberpost up there) make the ball go far fast.

For the record, I am slightly skeptical of Bonds & others & the statistical spike that's occurred, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially in Barry's case. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a guy past his physical prime can bust his tail to keep in shape, and combine that effort w/ his knowledge of the game (the strike zone in particular) and his interest in optimizing his talents (cf. his swing tweaks) to outproduce folks 10 years younger than him.

Question: are there specific injuries that are a sign of steroid abuse, or is the body just more suseptible to getting hurt, because I know Barry's missed plenty of time w/ hammy issues, and power hitters are always torquing their back.

If Kapler stopped swinging like a slap-hitting 5'3" utility player, he might put those pecs to use. He's got more loop in his swing than a jumprope, and I SWEAR he swings down on the ball. If you're going to risk roid rage, modeling yourself after Ozzie Smith isn't wise.

...and maintaining a close relationship with a guy known to be involved in a steroid ring, and receiving steroids himself. (sorry, but that's kind of been lost in the "strength matters" side of this discussion.) i really don't think you can say he deserves the benefit of the doubt after that. far too much coincidence going on there.

fucking player's union.

But for a more visible example, take Reggie Jackson. I saw a shirtless photo of him in SI once, a few (3-5?) years ago, when he was w/ the A's (I think -- he had no facial hair). Lithely muscular. Right next to it was a pic of shirtless, 50 year old Reggie. Double the muscles.

here's reggie young: http://sportsmed.starwave.com/classic/2000/1019/photo/c_reggie3_i.jpg
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/wallpaper/jackson_reggie.jpg

reggie primed: http://www.kskssports.com/ksks_sports/images_baseball/reggie_jackson/rj018.jpeg

reggie waning: http://search.eb.com/blackhistory/art/ojacksr001p4.jpg

i've heard weight gain stories like the one you mention but they all involved steroids or something really close to them. could you see if he was using bunny ears when said "protein supplementation"?

And no to the scare quotes re: supplements at the gym.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpa2lpNnFzBF9TAzk1ODYxNzc3BHNlYwN0bQ--?slug=ap-steroids-subpoenas&prov=ap&type=lgns

I don't get knocking on Boggs, the guy had one of the highest career batting averages ever with men in scoring position. The Redsox being lead legged team usually batted him first or second for a large part of his career which brought down his opportunities to drive in runs. During Boggs time on the Sox, it wasn't the hitting keeping them from winning, they always scored plenty of runs.

The steroids may be an edge, but perhaps not much more than the year round workouts that players do these days. I think the crappy pitching from expansion and those lunatic homer parks have been the biggest reason hitting of all kinds has exploded. Look at the batting averages, those have been just as high as the HRs since the big expansion push.

Keep in mind, St. Louis moved in and lowered the walls at Busch stadium the year that McGwire and Sosa went on a rampage. It took what had been a pitchers park and turned it into a hitters park. That division has Busch, Wrigley, and Enron err Minutemaid Field which are all very friendly to hitters and now you can add in Great America. When the weather is right, Riverfront in Cinci was a great hitters park. I've never heard either of the stadiums in Milwaukee called pitchers parks. That has to help.

you also made a great point about the nl central; i hadn't at all realized it's such a homer haven until you pointed that out. actually though, i don't think wrigley field is even considered a hitter's park any more. this is due, i'd imagine, to the increase of new ones over the past decade. i had always thought busch stadium was dead neutral, but i could be wrong. i wasn't aware they had shortened the fences.

There is some precedent for expansion leading to an explosion in home runs. Maris' 61 in 1961 was also the first year for the Washington Senators (now Tx. Rangers) and Angels entered the AL.

When McGwire hit 70 in 1998, it was also the first year for Tampa and Arizona. Milwaukee moved to the NL that year and the cenral.

Wrigley is a hitters heaven when the wind is blowing out and when it is cold and blowing in from the lake it is near impossible to drive a ball out.

St.Louis brought in the fences largely because of McGwire and I think that year or the year before was when they put in the grass.

i've never really bought the "expansion dillutes quality of play too much", because it's got to happen SOMETIME (when the game is successful at least, as it was when florida and colorado were introduced), but the second expansion of the 90s was definitely unnecessary. the d-rays, for one, could be contracted at no loss to anyone (but maura, i guess?). colorado should probably be contracted fans or no fans simply because baseball has no business being played there. it's been a failed experiment.

only suspicions though.

only suspicions, as i said.

The drug the BALCO case is mostly about wasn't even made illegal by the US til last October. So what's the biggie?

(pssst, Gygax, help me get oriented: this JD dude is obviously the Enemy of Truth and Analysis, correct?)

dr., your turn to clear something up for me: you don't by any chance go by markp on nyyfans, i hope?

and come on, the drug at the center of the balco thing wasn't even KNOWN about until last fall! you know this, don't play coy.

On what then? Guy with the Best Teammates? And if you think context-neutralizing is wrong, you must think Preston Wilson was robbed...

>dr., your turn to clear something up for me: you don't by any chance go by markp on nyyfans, i hope?<

No. I'm not at all a fan of bulletin boards (especially sportsfan ones -- too many stupes), so consider yerselves lucky.

>and come on, the drug at the center of the balco thing wasn't even KNOWN about until last fall! you know this<

I do. So, players who used it were supposed to PRESUME it was illegal? C'mon, that won't fly in court.

doc, i didn't say we should take all stats at face value, either. one thing some people don't seem to realize is that we're talking value of a season here, not value of a player, so most sabermetric tools have only limited usefulness. and the simple truth is that factors beyond a players control effect the value of what he does on the field! this is why the bbwaa is correct in paying attention to RBI, instead of disregarding them entirely (though they do give them too much emphasis, of course). that's why i buy in to the "they could've finished last without him" argument. let's take a look at it this way: if a player is performing in games that actually matter, doesn't how he performs matter more? doesn't this effect the value of his value, as it were, in a way similar to how high-leverage innings effects the value of relievers?
for example, if you've got two relievers, A1 and A2, who are identical in every way and both pitch, in a season, 85 innings with a 2.00 era and a 1.00 whip - against the same batters, we'll even say - how can one be more valuable than the other? simple; reliever A1 pitched in only hi-lev situations and ended up with 45 saves and an 7-0 record, while A2 pitched only when these was at least a 4 run difference in the score and ended up with no saves, no holds, and no wins. equal value to a general manager, yes - not equal value on the season.
and there are two ways to look at a-rods value to the rangers last year, of course. a stathead: "his value was x runs and x wins." me: his value was x runs and x wins, but these runs and wins don't count for as much as (for example) jorge posada's, because they ultimately meant nothing." (jorge was also the one constant on the yankees team last year, which also counts for something, but i still probably would've given the mvp to a-rod by a nose). there are (more than) two ways to look at the value of something. there's simple monetary value, but there's also value by necessity that can far exceed this monetary value. sabermetricians look at the monetary value and stop there, i keep going. whereas jorge was vital to the yankees outcome last year, the rangers would've been better off without a-rod (one factor i WON'T let in to MVP discussion is salary, but still). there are dozens and dozens of ways to evaluate the MVP - many of them are subjective, many of them are intangible, and many of them make logical sense. and i think that's why the award is interesting.

if you're interested, the only argument against "subjectivity" with the MVP award i'll accept (and i've never seen it argued) is that there's simply TOO MUCH NOISE, and that, while sure it might make sense to include subjective elements and elements beyond a player's control, it's impossible to do so without including ALL of them, so why bother? (and this is where the fun-hating part comes in again, mostly.)

What were your thoughts on Mark Mcgwire when he bested Maris' record?

http://www.cramercollectibles.com/88toymac.jpg
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/2001/spring_training/news/2001/02/15/cardinals_preview/mcgwire.jpg

(at the time, i thought it was exciting, but my excitement quickly faded into boredom as once magical milestones were smashed with reckloss abandon year after year. bonds is simply several years late on the scene. i should also note that i kind of live in the st louis area and my dad grew up there and is a cardinals fan, so i had a personal interest in it then.)

Isn't it amazing that "his games didn't matter" arguments never come up with the Cy Young Award? Presumably because it's for the unambiguously "best" hurler -- but i swear I remember a '70s photo of Tom Seaver with one of his Cy trophies, and it was inscribed MOST VALUABLE PITCHER.

To me, most valuable and best are synonymous.

"And with those two "identical" relievers you mentioned, there's always the question of whether the "pressure" situation made it any harder for him to perform at that level. These are big leaguers; almost universally, they have ice in their veins, which is why seasonal "clutch" leaders are never variable (over time) from the best in ANY situations."

that's not the point. the point is that, whether or not the player's themselves are clutch, they PERFORMED at clutch levels for THAT SEASON, which is what we're evaluating here. that's why "close and late" performance and performance with RISP should be big factors with MVP awards - it effects value within a season (i think even most statheads agree with me here).

in the reliever scenario, clutch really doesn't have anything to do with it: A1's production was a lot more valuable than A2's, due to circumstances entirely beyond his control (in this case, the situations in which he was brought in to pitch).

"Isn't it amazing that "his games didn't matter" arguments never come up with the Cy Young Award?"

interesting question - anyone happen to know the guidelines for the cy? i've seen the MVP ones; it's pretty open-ended, of course.

"To me, most valuable and best are synonymous."

best player = the one with the most talent
most valuable player = the one whose talent was worth the most

Presumption should not be the basis for a logical argument.

Also, I might've heard that andro's been added to the list of regulated substances. (No clue if that's accurate or not.)

leee, i think my presumptions are perfectly logical.

*Androstenedione is a steroid. In the body, it is converted to testosterone. (aka testosterone precursor)

*Androstenedione is not a banned androgenic steroid in baseball, but it is banned in most other sports, both in the U.S. and abroad.

As for presumption, you've projected an as yet unconfirmed, completely speculative scenario that's yet to be backed by a single shred of evidence.

as stated numerous times above, i'm actually in a very fractionally small minority that actually believes that Bonds:

A) never took THG, only the vitamin deficiency supplements that BALCO was known for prior to the investigation.

B) took creatine and other over the counter/GNC-ready "natural steroid-like substances" supplements that he's mentioned both before and after the accusations.

C) works out more than any other baseball player in the game (after the 659 game he hit the weightroom for an hour). rookies and newcomers to the giants have said to the press (i paraphrase): "i used to think i was in shape and worked out a lot until i came here and saw Bonds on his workout schedule."

D) his performance is based maybe 10-20% on muscle mass.

I realize this is a marginal and minority opinion and that I very well could be wrong, but this is what I believe. As you point out, McGwire didn't lie about his Andro-usage and I don't think Bonds is lying about his supplement intake either.

As to the second point, it would have been Anderson since he is/was Bonds' PT. But rather than simply call Bonds' continued defense of GA a mark of guilt, I offer that it's merely a sign of loyalty to a longtime friend. (I am speculating as well, mind, but from no less valid evidence.) Because they are such friends, I have doubts about whether GA would surreptitiously slip Bonds substances that could jeopardize his career.

This is all turning into the "Does Kerry really listen to rap" debate.

a good point, but it doesn't seem terribly likely to me; there were 5 others accused as well. i imagine they've got plenty of evidence, and i assume it'll all come out in a while. also, if these leaks are so anonymous, how is it we already know who the leakers were? they're planning on writing a book about the case, apparently, so it's clear they aren't trying to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. they're standing firmly by what they discovered.

"This is all turning into the "Does Kerry really listen to rap" debate. "

i didn't see that, thank heavens, but i see where you're going.

xpost ephedra's been banned, hasn't it?

>A1's production was a lot more valuable than A2's, due to circumstances entirely beyond his control<

So I don't understand why we're honoring a player for circumstances entirely beyond his control.

My favorite thing on steroids from BP between Gary Huckabay and "a guy named Dave" a few weeks ago:

Dave: "...Watch the NFL lately? Yes, they have a drug policy, but it's apparently something along the lines of stringent testing, following by immediate urine substitution. Look at those guys. Listen to them. The NFL's drug policy is a joke, the fans know, wave it off with a wink, and get back to their eight-hour Sunday addiction. But in baseball, a big black dude hits 73 home runs and doesn't kiss the press's ass, and he's fed to the media hordes like shrimp cocktail and Jack Daniels."

Gary: "You saying Bonds isn't getting a fair shake from the media because he's black? Or that he's using steroids?"

Dave: "I don't know if he's using steroids or not. Myself, I couldn't care less. But are you going to tell me that race doesn't enter into it? People embraced Mark McGwire like he was a victorious God, and people forget how cranky he could be to the press. Bonds is treated like some cross between a spoiled prodigy and a performance artist. Yes, I think it's because he's black. We've gotten to where we let people off too easily about being a racist. All some cracker has to do is get up, talk about the 'PC Police,' and say 'I'm not a racist,' and the story becomes 'He denied being a racist! Must be OK!' It's become too easy to be a prejudiced tool, and then claim victimhood on the altar of the fight against 'Political Correctness.' Forgive the strange wordplay, but let's call a spade a spade. The press is racist, and the press is the filter through which 99% of sports information is passed."

so morbius, a two inning relief victory is worth exactly the same as a two inning mop up job? a reliever who finishes with 40 saves and 10 wins wasn't more valuable to his team than an identical reliever with no saves and no wins? i'm repeating myself because i find it difficult to believe you actually think that. once again, it's about realizing the predictive nature of sabermetric statistics and their inability to properly assess value in context. when operating within the context of a season, all hits are not equal, all pitches are not equal, all wins are not equal, etc. sabermetrics ignore this because statheads believe a player has no control over when they get a hit or when they pitch - but when evaluating the value of seasons, not players, doesn't it make sense to include them?

Sosa has gotten off fairly unscathed from 2 significant scandals/occurences that if had happened to Bonds, would NEVER be forgotten.

on the other hand there's Sosa's whole "family finances" business which is VERY shady but that has nothing to do with his on the field action.

Presumably, Bonds did not test positive otherwise this would have been leaked already (like all the rest of the leaks the Feds have been supplying the bay area newspapers).

What the Feds are hoping for is retroactively testing the urine samples for THG in the hopes of being able to accuse the 10 players who testified before the grand jury (Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Benito Santiago, Randy Valverde, Marvin Bernard, AJ Pierzynski, and others) of perjury which is a federal offense, despite the chemical supplement not being outlawed by the league.

The fact that the Track & Field athletes and the 4 (FOUR) Oakland Raiders who have tested positive for THG have not been threatened with any discipline, nor have the 87 MLB players who HAVE tested positive for banned steroids, this is appears to be a very 1984/McCarthy-esque "witchhunt" (to borrow from Dusty Baker's comments) against Bonds.

So with that all said and done, Bonds has responded to his critics by piecing together what Joe Sheehan of the Baseball Prospectus analytic site claims is what's possibly the best month of baseball playing in the history of the game.

Apparently the 87 MLB players who tested positive do NOT know the results of their tests... but the Feds now do. The Baseball Union insisted that the tests would be anonymous. There's a great recap of the most recent developments here.

but leaking the names of those that test positive should be plenty. if they get proof, the careers of bonds, sheffield, and giambi will be permanently scarred, and that's enough punishment.

why haven't the feds tested the samples for thg yet?

High Profile Players coincidentally slumping this season:
(BA/OBP/SLG/OPS)

Alex Rodriguez:
2004: .255/.342/.429/.771
Career: .307/.381/.578/.959

Derek Jeter:
2004: .181/.259/.238/.497
Career: .315/.387/.457/.844

Gary Sheffield:
2004: .284/.400/.386/.786
Career: .298/.401/.525/.926

Vernon Wells:
2004: .216/.287/.315/.602
Career: .291/.329/.480/.809

Carlos Delgado:
2004: .273/.371/.505/.876
Career: .283/.394/.557/.952

Billy Mueller:
2004: .235/.325/.363/.688
Career: .291/.373/.420/.793

Sammy Sosa:
His aggregate #s are fairly equivalent however in his career he has hit 544 HRs vs. 328 2Bs... In 2004 Sosa has hit 10 2Bs to only 6 HRs. Are Sammy's longballs not as likely to leave the park this year? [Small Sample Size of course]

Okay, now that you see all these superstars (some of MLB's biggest stars), let's just say Bonds would have got off to a similar start... Could you even imagine the reactions (esp. the media)?

i think it's safe to say jeter and mueller are clear; i'm not going to judge any of the others yet except sheffield, who was very likely on thg.

It's sort of Jack McDowellish to suggest, but maybe the rash of Achilles injuries (and other injuries of the nagging variety that seem so prevalent this year) is a better place to start if we're going to speculate about who's off the juice. I just don't buy the doubles theory right now.

He was a regular when he came up with the G's, but then a rash of injuries is what done him in.

d00d, TWO whole threads with Mueller talk! Best day on ILB evar!

He addresses the BALCO investigation, the threat to his records, and his plans for the next few years.

NEW YORK — Barry Bonds intends to retire after next season, and it's not the Balco investigation or the walks that have led to his decision.

“Because I want to leave and do something else,” he said Tuesday, before the Giants played the New York Mets at Shea Stadium.

And what would that be?

“That's none of your business.”

Bonds, making $18 million this season, is in the third year of a four-year guaranteed deal. He has an option year for 2006 that kicks in if he achieves two incentive clauses: 1,500 plate appearances over the final three seasons of the contract, and at least 400 plate appearances each year.

But Bonds has made up his mind, for now at least, that the option year won't matter.

Would Bonds leave if were approaching Hank Aaron's career home run record of 755?

“Probably,” he said.

“I'm not playing until I'm 105 years old,” Bonds said. “I'm playing until I feel my time is up.”

Bonds said he would be open to finishing his career as a designated hitter, but only in California (A's and Angels, take notice) to remain near his family. And once his career is over, he would like to mentor a young player, much like Willie Mays did for him, though he said he wouldn't be interested in coaching.

Bonds at times opened up and at others retreated during an uncharacteristic impromptu interview session in front of his locker. Bonds usually doesn't speak to reporters before games, but even a sinus infection that kept him out of the starting lineup didn't stop a glassy-eyed Bonds, sniffling all the way, from taking questions on a variety of subjects.

He began with subdued short answers.

On whether he can hit .400, Bonds, hitting a major-league-leading .463, said the increase in pitching specialists and substitutions won't allow it.

“Nobody's going to hit .400,” he said. “Not even me.”

On asterisks in the record book: “My records aren't going anywhere,” he said. “Trust me.”

By the end of the 45-minute session, long after his teammates had left for batting practice, Bonds seemed to be enjoying himself. He moved out of the surrounding huddle to spit some tobacco juice into a garbage can, then returned to hold court, providing some surprising answers.

On Greg Anderson, Bonds' personal trainer and longtime friend, who has been indicted in the Balco investigation: “My brother's done some bad things, but he will always be a friend of mine. Always, with a capital `A.' “

And on a question of guilt by association, Bonds made his point with a revealing response.

“I wish my dad didn't drink in his day,” Bonds said. “He's still my father, but I can't change that. Just because my dad drank and was an alcoholic, does that mean I was with him?

“My brother does drugs. He's recovering. He's my brother and I love him to death, but am I going with my brother doing drugs? Of course not. You don't have any evidence. So what are you worried about?”

Bonds continued to distance himself from the scandal by saying, “There ain't nobody investigating me. Not since I checked.”

The root of the problem, Bonds explained, is the media. In his view, their unending search for negativity has changed the perception of the game for the worse.

“But I don't have to go home to my child and say I wrote something nasty about somebody else,” he said. “Never.”

-Selena Roberts, NY Times

I watched a few innings of the Braves/Brewers game in Milwaukee Friday night. The Brewers were doing re-unions that weekend for the 82 Brewers World Series team and the Milwaukee Braves were having a reunion of their championship team. Anyway...

Rollie Fingers was a guest in the booth with Don Sutton and Skip Caray for a few innings. When asked about the new park, Fingers stated that he was glad he didn't have to pitch there as the power alleys were 20 foot shorter than the old stadium. The concensus between Sutton and Fingers that Miller Field was definitely not a pitchers park. Both pitched for Milwaukee for a year or two back in the 80s.

I really do want to believe that he is on the level when he says he's not supplementing with anything illegal. But frankly, it's getting nearly impossible to do so.

"And since his swing is almost identical to what it was 10 years ago, one must assume that the new explosiveness is not due to any rotational mechanics or adjustments, but due solely to increase in twitch muscle response."

...and (skimming down the page)...

"On a personal note, I know vegans and tri-athletes who live by a strict nutritional regimen also. The reason I bring this up is that I've never seen any of them go back on their diet. They bring nutritional bars or fruit or whatever they need with them so if the menu doesn't suit their diet, they have something to eat. But maybe Bonds' strict nutritional regimen includes such fatty foods as fried chicken and cornbread. Or maybe Bonds only eats at his mom's house once per contract. Either way, as long as his mom's southern home cooking is part of his offseason nutrition, it doesn't seem like his diet could play any significant role in his home run barrage."

Also, that "% offered" weighted against a Total Pitch # that doesn't clarify whether intentional walks were included (since an intentional walk means, duh, Barry's not going to offer) seems quite questionable as well.

It's true that he's offering at fewer pitches than he ever has by rate, but if he's really seeing the ball better, why is his contact rate also going down?

Bonds' average "% Making Contact" rate over his career is .782, yet his average for 2001-2003 is .787. His contact rate has actually come up over the past 3 seasons. The author has already admitted Bonds has offered at fewer pitches AND misdiagnosises Bonds' contact trend by briefly dismissing a rather massive outlier = shaky stuff.

The rest of that article is pretty limp speculation:

"bonds first 450' homer coming in 2000", he hit a 472' blast his first month after being called up in 1986
Bonds and Sheffield DID work out together after the 2003 season
...even little stuff like "sea air"... SBC Park is 8 miles from the sea, the SF bay is fresh water. wind is much greater factor than air salinity/humidity.

Power numbers remain steady

i think i agree with the assessment that it's way more complex than just some guys juicing up suddenly becoming monster ballplayers. it takes a lot more than big-looking muscles to be good.

i think you'll see some drop, if an actual prevention policy is ever installed, and mlb doesn't juice the balls a touch more to compensate. i'd guess that 75% (to toss out a number) of players can see no real drop off just by timing their cycles properly - go off before feb, get tested before august, test clean, start again. steroid's continue working after they've stopped being detectable, + synthetics, + HgH. supposedly there'll soon be a test for HgH, so a real testing policy will eliminate 2/3 of those problems.

;-D

``I don't even know who he is, so how he's making accusations of me, I don't even know.''

it turns out the "player" who got testosterone and HGH from Bonds' friend/trainer was Armando Rios.

from his player page: Rios was able to generate surprising power from his small body in past seasons. But he was rendered a singles hitter in 2002 because of his knee.

MLB will not administer a penalty as the event took place outside of the 12-month statute of limitations.

Sheffield does not implicate Bonds but does explain why the two are no longer friends.

Then he said something that he was all for testing and was speaking up to clean up the game followed by some Alouesque statement that he took a pee everytime he went to the park, so he didn't think it was a violation of his privacy to put some in a cup.

Strange interview.

i didn't realize either of these things:

"The surge toward Aaron was sparked by a late-career power outburst that coincided with Bonds' relationship with BALCO. That association began not long after the 2000 season, when Anderson took the Giants outfielder to meet Conte. In the four years since, Bonds has hit 209 home runs -- or 30 percent of the homers he has smacked in his 19-year career."

"Sept. 3, 2003: Victor Conte statement. During a federal raid at BALCO, Conte allegedly said that he had provided Bonds with steroids and that the outfielder had used the drugs regularly, according to a government document obtained by The Chronicle. Conte has denied making the statements."

[bonds was also apparently using HGH btw]

(if you don't want to read the whole article there's a totally damning summary of the past year's events at the bottom)

so why are Bonds' tests clean and the other athletes not?

(just a dumb guess?)

and afaik hgh is still essentially undetectable, though they were working on some kind of test.

i don't get what doesn't make sense to you. bonds' trainer told some guy he's been giving him roids. unless some dude actually organized a fraud 9 minute phone conversation with a guy who sounds exactly like greg anderson, this is the ballgame. anderson also claimed to have inside info on when bonds was going to be tested and seemed fully confident he could squeak bonds by it.

seriously, is there ANYTHING that would ever prove bonds's guilt to you? bonds is being crushed under a mountain of evidence, but it doesn't seem to change anyone's mind. the tape's a fake, the feds have an agenda, and (let me guess) positive sample results could be falsified...what would it take, short of barry admitting it?

did mlb put some kind of gag order on fox about this?? i didn't hear it mentioned in either ballgame.

xpost...

The only true proof of guilt is a) the athlete admits it, or b) they test positive. Everything else is speculation.

barry an athlete's trainer and friend being secretly taped admitting that he injected steroids into that athlete crosses the line of speculation into something quite a bit more substantial.

Either way you want to characterize Anderson, it doesn't seem to challenege the fundamental implication that Bonds received illegal steroids from him. Either he's exaggerating what he provided Bonds or he's telling the truth?

I mean, one could argue that Anderson is so full of himself that he made up every single bit of the recorded conversation, from the general premise that Bonds took his 'roids right down to the specific mention of where things are injected, how to beat the tests, etc. But that just seems like a lot of work with a huge potential negative risk for someone who has much to gain from a close personal and professional relationship with Bonds. If Bonds were indeed not taking steroids and Anderson knew that he was clean, what could possibly possess him to make these statements in any context, to anyone?

I don't know what the trainer's motives are or were. Barry could deny the charges, and then it's his word against another guy's word, which is a stalemate. Barry could say that the trainer was mistaken about what substances were involved, since they presumably originated with a doctor and not with a trainer. (I'm not claiming that this is the case, or if I would believe Barry if he said this)

The point is, all these allegations are speculation and circumstantial evidence unless Barry either tests positive or admits he's doping. If we condemned people based on circumstantial evidence alone then there'd be dozens of guilty baseball players.

The fact that Anderson thought he was speaking in confidence IS quite damning. There would have had to have been a big misunderstanding, which is possible if Anderson himself was not preparing the substances, or would be unable to testify as to precisely how they were concocted).

But what is the legal status of a "secretly recorded conversation" anyhow? Is this legitimate evidence?

gygax, leee, you're killing me!

Sure, if we knew who was lying and who to trust and what the facts are, we could draw sensible conclusions. But we can't do that in this case or in virtually every doping case in any sport. The surest, more verifiable evidence is a) confession, or b) a positive test.

Personally, I think the Anderson tape is close to a nail in the coffin, but I'm willing to accept that we don't have all the important evidence and it is still too soon to judge.

Also, we run into slippery slope arguments here ... surely a similarly circumstantial case could be concocted for dozens of other ballplayers if anyone bothered to give it this sort of attention. And since there's no reason to treat Bonds any different from any other cheater, then we should suspect Sheff, Beltre, reopen the McGwire/andro book. Then you end up with a sport where speculation abounds and everyone is assumed guilty. Again, the only way around such chaos is to stick to basic principles: confession or positive test. And if you have neither, then there is little choice but to assume the athlete is innocent.

Basically what's happening is that a really grudgeful Fed agent (Iran White) is leaking a bunch of illegally obtained and questionable material to the SF Chronicle which you seem to be confusing with courtroom evidence. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense (specifically Greg Anderson's dubious and factually inaccurate nonsense on that tape) to me.

Sheffield has come clean as a Balco abuser. Sheffield, when questioned about Bonds, said that in his opinion Bonds was not using the drugs. Now whether Anderson is claiming that Bonds is in order to drum up business and give false hopes to more naive players who think that all you do is rub a cream and take a few drops and you suddenly are able to break alltime baseball records or not, that is something that I don't know and neither do you. Only Barry Bonds and Greg Anderson know for sure. And both are on the record as saying that is not the case.

So, as stated upthread: The Feds/MLB are going to need a positive test in order to prove otherwise. They've had numerous opportunities to. But instead we've got a bunch of illegally produced not to mention illegally leaked sketchy details. That's not enough to change my mind.

you can correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't believe sheffield ever came clean as a balco "abuser". there's little reason to think he wasn't involved in exactly the same ring as bonds as is covering barry because of it.

MIR, i''d like to write some really long reply but i feel like i'd just be saying the same thing (and i've got other things on my mind right now anyway). essentially i think you're still approaching this w/ a lawyer's mind, that "innocent until proven guilty" is a condition created by and for the courtroom (where sentences carry, and that we not being part of need not adhere to it when it is in fact not a safeguard of logic but one of fairness.

Positive test or confession. Period.

It's a repeat of the Greg Anderson story from a couple of years ago, except this time it involves BALCO founder Victor Conte. It is claimed that Conte told federal investigators in 2003 that he gave steroids to Bonds. Conte denies this.

New York Yankees star Jason Giambi told a federal grand jury that he had injected himself with human growth hormone during the 2003 baseball season and had started using steroids at least two years earlier, The Chronicle has learned.

Giambi has publicly denied using performance-enhancing drugs, but his Dec. 11, 2003, testimony in the BALCO steroids case contradicts those statements, according to a transcript of the grand jury proceedings reviewed by The Chronicle.

...

ugh

i remember arguing here that you can't strip an MVP citing roid use but could for ex. strip someone's record citing same but now i don't remember why?

i don't see what's disappointing about this, good for him. barry to follow, i pray.

When were these steroids actually banned?

2003. Giambi was taking steroids pre-BALCO.

Also, w/r/t: performance... Sheffield had his worst season of the past 5 when he was on BALCO cream/clear.

i mean, jeez...the mlbpa and nflpa are possibly the most powerful unions in the country relative to their "industries."

I'm gonna guess that the Stadium faithful won't be too forgiving of JG.

Barry Bonds told a federal grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream supplied by the Burlingame laboratory now enmeshed in a sports doping scandal, but he said he never thought they were steroids, The Chronicle has learned.

Federal prosecutors charge that the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, known as BALCO, distributed undetectable steroids to elite athletes in the form of a clear substance that was taken orally and a cream that was rubbed onto the body.

Bonds testified that he received and used clear and cream substances from his personal strength trainer, Greg Anderson, during the 2003 baseball season but was told they were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by The Chronicle.

Actually, maybe I'll just summarize:

MIR: there is no causal proof of anything.
Alex in SF: Bonds is more juiced than a Florida orange!! GRRRRR!!
Morbs: 5x^2 - 4x + 9 = 0, x = assume Bonds is innocent.
John: let's assume Bonds ISN'T innocent
Gygax: everyone is lying about everything. Now everyone play nice.

The Truth Lies In The Numbers

GEE HOSS HOW NICE OF YOU.

Now consider that, even without steroids, Bonds would've hit 500 home runs -- and stolen 500 bases. I don't think we have even a remote chance of seeing that again.

But you still have to deal with:
Bonds is tainted b/c Bonds used 'roids

Or, see Pete Rose.

Perhaps, but why put the steroid cutoff at 1998, or whenever he is alleged to have started using them? Maybe he started earlier, or later? Maybe he was using some other questionable substance before that, and his career should be tainted for those additional reasons.

Why not? Everything regarding Bonds is based on questionable evidence and endless speculation, so we can put the cutoff wherever we want. And while we're at it, we should come up with a similar cutoff for McGwire, Sosa, and a few dozen other notable home run hitters, because who knows what those guys were/are taking. But some of those guilty parties, like McGwire, should get free passes because they're swell people, whereas guys we don't like, such as Bonds, are obviously deserving of the punishment.

Or we can deal with hard facts, like positive tests and confessions.

(note: this isn't a rebuttal to Nate, more like one for Boswell. That article really pissed me off)

the effects of steroids might very well be beneficial (and I think it's ignorant to think they have no effect at all) and Bonds might have used them for years, but like I said before, since they weren't banned by the game 'til 04, I'm not going to get worked up about it. Even now, whatever.

Note: Not searching the SF Chronicle offices or homes of the writers who published the leaks, nor the homes of Jeff Novitzky or Iran White, both of whom are Federal Agents who had complete access to the leaked testimony and had both been reported in Playboy as well as being overheard at the gym they attended with Bonds as planning on "bringing Bonds down".

Why would Vic Conte (a target of the Federal Grand Jury Inquiry) have access to sealed Federal Grand Jury testimony, and what would he stand to gain by leaking it to the press? Sounds very fishy to me.

"The stories caused an uproar, and led Major League Baseball to adopt a toughened steroid-testing policy."

Bear in mind the article in question was written by the two writers who all the Federal Grand Jury testimony was illegally leaked to.

Because this is illegal.

Haha look if they haven't invaded Robert Novak's house they sure as hell ain't gonnna break into these guys!

He also had his second arthroscopic knee surgery of the off-season, cleaning up some cartilage damage which will keep him out of the majority of spring training.

The long-awaited "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big," is scheduled for release by Regan Books on Feb. 21. Regan publicist Paul Olsewski told The Associated Press in an e-mail that the release date could be moved up.

Parent company HarperCollins posted a book description on its Web site that said Canseco "made himself a guinea pig of the performance-enhancing drugs" and added the 1988 AL MVP "mixed, matched and experimented to such a degree that he became known throughout the league as 'The Chemist.'"

The Daily News did not quote from the book and said it was still being edited. The newspaper would not say how it got the information.

Canseco did not respond to an e-mail from the AP.

Canseco said he, McGwire and Jason Giambi shot steroids together in the bathroom stall at the Oakland Coliseum, the Daily News reported. McGwire has always denied using steroids.

"I have always told the truth and I am saddened I continue to face this line of questioning," McGwire told the newspaper.

Canseco said he introduced Texas teammates Rafael Palmeiro, Ivan Rodriguez and Juan Gonzalez to steroids after being traded to the Rangers in 1992.

"Neither our current owner, general manager and manager were with the Rangers then," Texas spokesman Gregg Elkin said. "The Rangers continue to support baseball's initiative to get steroids out of the game."

Canseco also said President Bush, the Rangers' general managing partner at the time, must have known about the steroid use.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy did not specifically address Canseco's assertion, but said Sunday that Bush's position on steroids "has been known for some time," noting that he condemned the drugs in his 2004 State of the Union address.

A few years ago, Canseco claimed that 80 percent of major leaguers had taken steroids. Last spring, he said: "I think the numbers may have changed. Who knows? Maybe the numbers have diminished."

Canseco hit 462 home runs in a major league career from 1985-2001.

Baseball recently adopted a tougher steroid-testing program after the sport came under increased scrutiny about the drugs. Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield and Giambi testified before a federal grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative known as BALCO.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy did not specifically address Canseco's assertion, but said Sunday that Bush's position on steroids "has been known for some time," noting that he condemned the drugs in his 2004 State of the Union address.

Gee, I didn't know Bush was the General Managing Partner of the Rangers in 2004, too! Thanks for the heads up, Trent!

bay area reporter gives some notable A's reactions plus commentary

Last week's surgery was Bonds' second cartilage tear/removal of the offseason (he had the other knee done at the end of last season after he played the last 2 weeks of the season with torn carilage). The surgery was described as very minor, it will only partially interrupt 6 weeks of his strict pre-season training schedule. I don't think he was waiting for this clean-up, from this interview with Stan Conte:

Bonds now has had two surgeries on each of his knees. After the 2004 season, he reported difficulty with each knee, Conte said. The left knee was far worse. The right did not seem to pose a big problem. Bonds had surgery on the left knee and, within a month, was doing all of his ordinary winter conditioning and baseball work.

About 10 days ago, Bonds reported more discomfort in his right knee.

"I took a look at it and thought it was fairly significant," Conte said. "It was not the run-of-the-mill sore knee. We got an MRI and confirmed what we thought. There was stuff floating around in there.

"We have the video and pictures from the 1999 surgery that Dr. Ting did on his right knee. I was concerned because he showed some arthritis in 1999 and I figured it would have progressed significantly more. But we found today that it hasn't progressed that much."

Conte hopes to begin Bonds' rehabilitation today and has asked him to report to spring training with pitchers and catchers on Feb. 17 so they can continue the program together.

Bonds long has complained that spring training is too long and he does not need a month of exhibition games. As Conte sees it, Bonds' shorter Cactus League schedule will keep his body fresher for the regular season.

"I wouldn't be disappointed for him missing two weeks of early spring training, to tell you the truth," Conte said. "Even if he didn't have surgery, I wouldn't mind if he showed up March 1. I like it when his spring training is shorter."

Palmeiro, Gonzalez and Dean Palmer all registered significant SLG increases Canseco's first 'full' (ha) season in Texas (after a half-season and the offseason).

I don't get all of these accusations that Canseco woke up one day and decided to write this book to make a quick buck. He's been threatening to write this book for years.

Clearly Canseco was looking to make the not-so-quick buck.

i guess he did hold the press conference - maybe that's to protect himself from canseco insinuations... maybe public humiliation is a good deterrant?

Because it's more must-see/hear when sports journalists & pundits to chomp at the bit like a three-sheeted Joe Blow at a sports bar than when they take the more restrained, demure route of explication. See also: Stephen A. Smith's knack for spitting out unsubstantiated rumors & opinions re: NBA players & coaches at full-volume (because loud = right) (& the people need to know!), & then just letting the shit fall where it may regardless of the veracity of these rumors / opinions.

I love that hypocricy, though - "NO MERCY until he comes completely clean (about confidential grand jury testimony that should have never been leaked to the public regarding a case that can't be openly discussed)!"

I hope Giambi sits on the bench and rots for the next four years/80 bazillion dollars.

"In many instances last year, players were not tested until late in the season. They were being tested only once, so it was decided that they would be more likely to put off using steroids because they hadn't been tested.

"Barry Bonds, one of the better players who has been a subject of steroids speculation, was not tested until the latter half of September last season. If his performance of recent seasons was chemically aided, his effort last year was presumably done without any assistance, making it all the more remarkable."

On top of that, Bonds is accused ('accused') of using BALCO's untraceable enhancers - they can't even find HGH without blood tests, right? - that wouldn't have shown up in a late-season piss test.

No offense milo, but I'm gonna throw your "(r)ather weak argument in general" right back atcha. :-)

Of course, I'm of a mind that it'd be better for pitchers to just throw Barry strikes than to treat him like some irresistable force, juice or no juice. Even the best hitters of the past 30 years made out over 60% of the time when putting the ball in play - I'd rather take the coin flip than just cut bait.

Your second argument is precisely it - teams artificially inflate his numbers with their strategizing. Whether you want to give him credit for that or not is irrelevant (he psychs out the other team, good for him), you can't chalk up continued high numbers to 'oh, he wasn't on steroids, it's all natural....'

Def takes the trophy for contorted BB-dissing!

There's often nothing more pathetic than a retired athlete. Case 23657, Mike Greenwell:

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=69018

Milo, Morb is OTM - when you're given the pitch to hit, you have to hit it. Even if he's getting a boost in OBP from chicken-shit managers, he still has to perform during the other 70-80% of his plate appearances, which he does (1 out of ever 2 times, it seems). The argument you're proposing for Bondsie - that pitchers are afraid to give him a pitch to hit, which causes umps to give him the calls on close pitches, which puts pressure on the pitcher to throw a strike that could be clocked - could apply to any hitter worth a damn (even those whose physiques are slight or slender, like Ichiro), or any pitcher that can't throw a strike to save their life. Trying to connect this and 'roid use isn't the way to go.

Sure, psychology has a lot to do w/ success in baseball - cf. pitchers establishing dominance by pitching high and tight, hitters messing w/ pitchers by stepping out & calling time-out, baserunners dancing off of 1st base - but these advantages only take you so far. Talent will out, and if you're a shitty or merely average hitter on a hot streak (cf. the bombastic major league intros of would-be world beaters like Kevin Maas & Shane Spencer & Benny Agbayani), someone's going to eventually find your weak spot, and, even so, the law of averages dictates that you, be you Clutch Hitter or Proven Slugger or Ridiculous Force of Nature, will fail as often as you succeed. There's a difference between acknolwedging & respecting a hitter's talent and kowtowing to it every time he swings the baat, but most folks don't seem to realize that when it comes to Bonds. It's as if baseball teams (in general) have given up trying to solve Bonds, and are simply willing to wait for him to retire rather than take their chance that this AB will be one of the 40-45% of ABs during the season where Bonds makes out.

that pitchers are afraid to give him a pitch to hit, which causes umps to give him the calls on close pitches, which puts pressure on the pitcher to throw a strike that could be clocked
Except that's not what I'm saying - kinda the opposite in fact. Pitchers and managers are so psyched out, they'll do anything except give him a hittable pitch. Rather than being forced 'to throw a strike' as with most hitters, they give him a free pass. And so when he does get a hittable pitch, it's more likely to be a mistake than intentional.

If they pitched him like anyone else, his OBP and SLG would both decrease. They might still be league-leading, etc. - but they wouldn't be insane numbers.

Um I don't have any problem with what Greenwell is saying there (although obv you can't go back in time and give him better contract years or whatever.)

We've been through this argument before, and nobody is saying that steroids do nothing to enhance performance. It's a matter of degree. Some of us think that it makes a noticeable but not a sizeable difference, helping some baseball skills while hindering others. And some of think that an average Joe can take steroids over the winter and hit like Bonds the season after. Unfortunately, there isn't conclusive proof on effects of steroids on baseball performance, but clearly the latter viewpoint is more ridiculous.

Hahaha pretending that anyone has said that just makes your argument even less credible.

Will Carroll on fact-checking Canseco's claims:

Most of Canseco's claims can't be tested. We do not know if he actually injected steroids into Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, or any of the 20 other players named in his book. We can, however, test if Canseco's claims match up with expected results. In research done by Mark McClusky at Baseball Prospectus, there was no significant change in the statistical profile of any of the three named Rangers...
If Canseco's claims are true, it is unclear from these statistics that any of these Rangers gained any significant advantage by steroid use. Remember, these drugs are supposed to be performance enhancing...

[I]t is unlikely that any baseball official — manager, trainer, general manager, or owner — has a full picture of steroid usage. Drug use, almost by definition, is done behind closed doors and, according to a major league team doctor that asked to remain anonymous, "It's a behavior that has a secrecy that more belies some deviant sexual behaviors than other drug use."

Canseco's player accusations continue, enveloping Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Bret Boone. While admitting in print that he has no personal knowledge of the drug use by these players, he uses his "expert" status as "the steroid godfather" to render his verdict. Bonds, he states, gained 20 pounds between the 1999 and 2000 seasons. Bonds' weight, like all players', is closely monitored. While Giants officials refused comment, it is unlikely that Bonds made this type of gain or that he would be 15 years behind the curve of steroid use if he indeed used such substances...

Perhaps the most interesting and telling fact contradicting Canseco's claim is the history of steroids themselves. From their invention in the 1920s to their introduction to American sport via the York Barbell Club to their infiltration of professional football in the late 1960s, there is no reason to believe that baseball would be 20 years behind other professional sports. Jim Bouton made baseball's fascination with amphetamines known in 1970 with publication of "Ball Four." Bouton himself believes that players of his era would have taken anything if they thought it could help them."

http://www.yesnetwork.com/yankees/news.asp?news_id=846

Remember, these drugs are supposed to be performance enhancing...

is vague enough to be meaningless, and totally misleading. obv. a drug is never going to help you have an accurate swing, but it will help you gain muscle mass and recover from muscle stress. there's no need to obfuscate it, that's what steroids do.

Maybe I've missed something, but is there any question? He admitted (in the grand jury testimony, which appears to be accurate) to 'accidentally' using the BALCO dope that Giambi and Sheffield used, no?

Quoting a guy on the YANKEES website that the YANKEES ran out of town on a RAIL has got to be one of the most delicious ironies of my day.

The Federal Grand Jury Testimony was sealed (meaning that any leaks to the press should be considered "hearsay" and not fact/for the record/etc.)

The FGJT stated that he took substances consistent with the descriptions of what was described as "cream" and "clear" but that Greg Anderson told him they were arthritic cream and flaxseed oil. The FGJT also stated (but this didn't get much press) that Bonds didn't like the way either of these made him feel so he stopped taking them shortly after they were given to him.

Maybe because it sounds like the kind of bullshit excuse a five year old would make up.

Oh please. Just because you want to live in fantasy land doesn't mean the rest the of us who have eyes and ears can't draw conclusions from the fact that (very grudgingly mind you) Bonds very lamely admitted to using stuff which everyone who was paying a speck of attention knows are steroids or their ilk.

Later on, it was discovered that Ferrari was providing illegal performance enhancing drugs to other cyclists. Other cyclists admitted in court that they had received drugs from him. Once these testimonies were revealed, the war of words started, with people accusing/assuming that Lance must have been getting drugs from Ferrari, while Lance continued to proclaim his innocence. Lawsuits have been filed. Last summer, Lance and his people cut themselves off from Ferrari and refused to have anything more to do with him.

Pretty similar to Bonds' case, huh? I guess this "proves" that Lance Armstrong is, or was, doping.

This article provides a good summary of the Armstrong-Ferrari relationship:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2004-07-13-armstrong-ferrari_x.htm?csp=1

Ferrari has since been found guilty of the charges against him.

Doping is a serious crime in Italy. The term "sports fraud" is a literal one, it's a crime roughly equivalent to business fraud in the US. Lance has said for some time now that he wants to ride the Giro D'Italia, and was considering skipping the Tour this year to ride that race. However, given his beefs with Simeoni and Ferrari, the Italian cycling fans would show him absolutely no mercy. Lance riding in the Giro would make the near-riot in ALCS Game 6 look like an ordinary day at the ballpark.

But more importantly, he doesn't want to go to Italy because there is a very real risk that the Italian police could arrest him and charge him with sports fraud as soon as he arrives in the country. This undoubtedly contributed to his recent decision to ride in the Tour again this summer.

OK, back to baseball now ...

Which is why I asked - you're comparing apples and oranges. One athlete admits to using performance enhancing drugs 'but didn't know' - the other one admits no such thing.

So cynical, Stenc!

I'm not even sure if that's a real sentence, but SO what if a bunch of folks (meself included) thought he was one of the most obvious juicers we'd ever seen going as far back as 2001. You make it sounds as though our lack of belief in his rather ridiculous denials represents some failing on our part (as opposed to a rather healthy sense of credulity and a healthy distrust of Ben Johnson-esque physiques.) Your guys' "it must be proven by SCIENCE or LAW" schtick is just laughable and idiotic.

Actually, the "it must be proven by science or law" schtick is how the legal system works in every Western country. Your "it's true if I believe it's true" schtick is how the legal system works in Saudi Arabia.

One last cycling reference -- go read up on the 1998 Tour de France to see how a sport becomes a sham when guilt is assumed via "suspicion", "association", "circumstance", and nothing more.

Yeah, except none of US are taking Barry Bonds to court ya dumbass so fuck science and law! We are sitting around on asses talking shit about baseball which is based in large part on conjecture and opinion (even the most religious SABR guys DON'T want to turn everything in to a number.) Jesus wtf is wrong with you?!?! This seems like a concept a five year old could comprehend and yet constantly you want to turn things back to "legal record" as though we are all seriously suggesting Barry go to jail or get suspended or be expunged from the record book or whatever. If that was happening okay then I see the huge hue and cry about "the law" and "proof", but all we are doing is just opining about something which by most sensible standards (i.e. non-Gygax! and non-beyond a reasonable doubt) has looked pretty cut and dry for quite a long time.

Dr Morbius, you can now chime in with your "b-b-b-but by looking at adjusted OPS I CAN prove who the best center fielder ever was" fun draining post.

"One last cycling reference -- go read up on the 1998 Tour de France to see how a sport becomes a sham when guilt is assumed via "suspicion", "association", "circumstance", and nothing more."

Yeah see UNFORTUNATELY cycling is a piss poor reference point, cuz

Most people don't buy that a significant percentage of top baseball players aren't using some sort of performance-enhancer. Including me. I'm just saying that there's a process to go through in order to prove that somebody's guilty, and when you don't follow that process, you get the 1998 Tour de France.

Um, yes LEGALLY there is a process, but we aren't talking about binding legality here, we are talking on the INTERWEB about whether or not we think x-player is using and whether or not x-player has benefited from it. For those purposes, I think anecdotal evidence, conjecture, poorly written notes from toilet stalls and rumors from Star Magazine are perfectly acceptable types of evidence to base an opinion on.

[which begs the question: Is Sparks banned by MLB?]

Strictly by looking at neck size, etc, how was McGwire less "obvious" than Bonds? How less obvious is Jeff Bagwell?

FTR I trust Canseco's "laser-like ability" a LOT more than I trust Tony La Russa who seems intent on proving that he is a grade A shit-bird these days with his "there is no truth to any of this" crap.

-- Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (speed.to.roam@gmail.com), February 17th, 2005 11:52 PM. (Gear!)

Well, I'm not going to name names or draw any conclusions but two or three of the most wholesome and chemically pure members of the board have a huge problem.

What. The. Fuck.

He was being a dick (quel surprise), accosting writers for not revealing their sources, accusing everyone of lying at some point, saying they should have asterisks put after their names, talking about how proud he is that Dodgers fans hate him and give him a hard time when he plays in LA, and on and on and I was laughing my ass off watching this stuff.

(this is from someone who actually found himself sympathizing with Barry during the broadcast!)

transcript

BARRY BONDS: As cheating? I don't -- I don't know what cheating is. I don't know cheating, if steroid is going to help you in baseball. I just don't believe it. I don't believe steroids can help you, eye/hand coordination, technically hit a baseball, I just don't believe it and that's just my opinion."

That's an answer worthy of Dubya himself (except it's a lie, he does know.)

Milo, believe it or not, there IS no discernable correlation between slathering on the joy juice and improving the skill set that contributes to being a good hitter, outside of bullshit conjecture and Canseco-esque eyeballing! (cf. "he is looking bigger" + "he is having monster year" DOES NOT EQUAL "he is on steroids" + "steroids are making him a better hitter") It's true until proven otherwise!

Not that it'll stop Alex & other like-minded folk to come back to this bastion of interweb oneupsmanship and at once both piss on A) the fact that there is no actual evidence to support or deny the claim that performance-enhancing drugs improve performance and B) the folks on this thread that are actually bothering to give the aforementioned fact (yes, FACT) some credence and voice any benefit of the doubt in the rudest, most obnoxious manner possible. Because, of course, it's soooo obvious that 2 + 2 = GUILTY!, and anyone that suggests otherwise doesn't have the power in their brainpan to successfully wipe their own ass. Yeesh times 5 trillion.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. And this "oh it doesn't improve your ability to see the ball" or "allow you to make better contact" thing is a fucking smokescreen, Dave. What do steroids and HGH do (at the very fucking least)? They allow you to train harder and longer and they make you stronger (that is far from being an unproven fact.) That means you can play more me games and hit the ball harder when you do hit it (and probably pitch the ball harder when you pitch it.) If you can't see how THAT might just possibly oh possibly enhance one's ability to play baseball well then you've got problems that can't possibly be addressed by interweb oneupsmanship.

Alex, I may be in the Bay Area in June for A's v Mets, if you wanna arm-wrestle.

Yes, steroids & HGH allow athletes to train harder and gain strength and all of that grrr testosterone stuff. (Of course, from what I've heard and read, use of 'roids also leads to physiological deterioration and a susceptibility to injury, so, you know, there's another enhancement.)

All I know is that there's more to baseball than just throwing hard and swinging hard, and for you to not acknolwedge THAT simple super-obvious fact (in between the "bullshits") makes your ranting and raving little more than frantic myopic leg-humping.

I think we need to form a Fight Club and just beat the crap out of each other (if only because whenever someone posts to this thread - regardless of which side they take - I want to punch them and myself).

Haha I'll start taking 'roids RIGHT now to not improve my performance then.

"All I know is that there's more to baseball than just throwing hard and swinging hard"

Who the fuck is ignoring that fact?!?! Look no doubt that Barry is the most successful baseball user of steroids BECAUSE he's probably the best position player who has EVER taken steroids (he's always had a fantastic eye and been a great great hitter.) He's one of the great players ever and has been since he broke into the game. But there is no doubt in my mind (and there should be NO doubt in yours) that his sudden ability to hit towering HRs at a RATE far far higher than he ever did before was directly affected by his sudden growth in musculature and that that muscle growth is in no way not a function of his habit of taking certain substances.

"What did redjuice and "players' coffee" do?"

Now as I said earlier--perhaps on another thread, I am EXTREMELY suspicious of the idea that players were actually taking what most folks think of as being "speed" (crystal, crank, benzidrine, dexydrine) every day of the season for entire careers. That doesn't mean I don't think players do/did it occassionally or that they didn't take all other manner of uppers, but the idea that anyone can take real genuine I'm not gonna sleep at all tonight speed that much and not 1) go insane and 2) seriously destroy their liver and their body very very quickly and 3) be very very noticeably tweakin' every time they were interviewed seems extremely hard for me to fathom. So I don't know what the effect of the stuff they were/are taking was/is, but I will bet your ass an overpriced beer from Network Associates Coliseum that whatever it was/is, it is probably less illegal, less harmful and less effective than taking steroids is.

that's over the LONG TERM. in the short term is another story.

Amen to that.

Essence of Sheehan on BP today:

"Bonds' relationship with the media is a huge part of this story, and it makes it hard to take the coverage without a whole quarry of salt, because there's not even a pretense of objectivity any longer. The two parties dislike each other, and that impacts the coverage. Bonds won't provide information, so the media substitutes his disdain for it and hand-waves the rest...

Bonds is facing these questions in part because he was betrayed by the system. His grand-jury testimony, and that of others, was leaked to the media. That is the biggest crime in this situation to date, and almost no one has addressed it with the same gusto as they have the connections between Bonds and his personal trainer. Where are the investigation and the indictments for that crime?

...Until we have more information, all the information, and can analyze this issue with the same rigor that we do this trade or that free-agent signing, it's incumbent upon us to make that most dissatisfying of statements:

I don't know."

I'm sure that some idiots who call into sports radio are on some "Barry would have been a stiff" shit, but they're not around. (And, you know, they're idiots.)

Why do people bring this up? That the leak was illegal does not alter the authenticity of its content. (Or else one of the many parties involved would have issued a statement: "I didn't say that.") Bonds admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs, but claimed he didn't know. Believe him or don't, but the dude copped to using them.

The WMD comparison is 87 flavours of Messed Up. She's saying "not speaking up about WMD's" = "not speaking up about steroids" = "lying". These aren't the same things at all. In the first case, the govt collected a bunch of so-called facts re:WMD's, and lied about them, saying it was a slam-dunk case. Nobody knows anything about steroids in baseball. There are no facts to question or criticise, only endless speculation about who is doping and who isn't (plus a few illegally leaked documents, the leaking and credibility of which are approximately as shady as the pre-war intelligence regarding WMD's in Iraq).

To recap: a) she thought Bonds was doping, b) she couldn't say that because she didn't have the facts, c) so she "lied", d) oh btw, in spite of a), b), and c), she still thinks Bonds is doping. She doesn't even understand what "lying" is.

I don't see where or how the first three even come close to refuting the idea that Bonds was/is doping.

BTW, gygax! is this the stellar reporting I am missing by not reading the Chronicle?

one ophthalmologist's opinion

all?!?!? there hasn't been a single person on this thread who has made that claim. find another strawman, pls.

To all none of us then.

In fact, according to MLB's hat sizing scale... 7 3/8 qualifies as a "Large".

I am the same height and about 10-20# lighter as Barry but I actually have a bigger hat size (7 1/2 = extra large).

;-)

The cap worn by Giants players on the field in Barry's official size. In no way does that translate to "a hat worn by Barry Bonds" or "definitive proof of Barry's hat size."

http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3548.chtml
Undated article written by the definitive professional sports authenticator who talks about ways of authenticating game-worn players' hat sizes and mentions Bonds' measurement of 7 1/4".

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5133127357
eBay auction for an Upper Deck authenticated 2004 game-worn Bonds hat (also 7 1/4")

The recent news about the FBI tipping off baseball officials to steroid problems back in 1993-4 is a far, far greater issue and it has already been forgotten. Unlike lone GM's, they had the power to institute actual change and chose not to.

1. talking with other GM's!
2. making sure they're in compliance with MLB and MLBPA rules!

OTOH, MLB has the power to negotiate or institute league-wide policies with teeth.

[ADMIN: This thread has been locked due to length, please find the discussion continued here.]