Barry Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use..

[redsquirrel]

To play Devil's advocate here, how come so many people are so quick to want Barry's numbers struck down, but very few talk about similar treatment for Mark McGwire?

I don't care what he (or anyone else) did prior to 2004 anyways, since steroids were not banned in major league baseball up til then.

I don't think McGwire is being considered for induction into Cooperstown....

And furthermore- I can totally agree why Bonds should not be considered for the Hall of Fame; because he did in fact "cheat the game". But, how are you going to parallel Barry Bonds the same punishment to someone like Pete Rose - whose althetic talents were 100% natural- yet he is not in the Hall of Fame, and will never be. IMHO- that's the biggest travesty of all.

[go Yankees]

Shib, it was a mistranslation from the book; Fainaru-Wada and Williams called it decanoate -- "undecanoato de testosterona" is testosterone UNdecanoate, which is fast-acting.

I think the book will amount to a more phenomenal view into a baseball player's use of steroids than we saw with Palmeiro, Giambi, or Sheffield. I also think the only place Bonds will really be punished, outside a possible perjury charge, is in the court of public opinion, namely, the Hall of Fame ballot. Surely, this is the "steroid era" for sluggers, ALL of the home-run numbers are probably inflated a bit, but regardless, just as Bob Gibson still stood during the "pitcher's era," Bonds will stand out during this current "hitter's era." That notwithstanding, his stock has fallen, and he will not be voted into the Hall of Fame alongside two of baseball's most beloved players and ambassadors -- Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr.

[go Yankees]

redsquirrel, baseball has a strange way of handling "cheaters." Fainaru-Wada and Williams compare Bonds here to Shoeless Joe Jackson, who took the fall in the 1919 Black Sox scandal, and Pete Rose. Then again, there are men of dubious character, like Ty Cobb, already in the Hall. I also think Bug Selig is terribly embarrassed at this, considering that at many points in the 1990s he entertained the idea of drug testing. Baseball's testing program, and previously, it's lack thereof, is a complete joke, and the commissioner bears at least some responsibility for this. I imagine the only way the league can show it has some sort of a spine with this scandal is to punish Bonds in some way.

Ironically, the Hall voters are the ones who will punish him by not voting him in -- they have no affiliation with Major League Baseball

[Shibby]

Just like the media to screw up the info. It's just more proof how the rumors start and they don't know shit about what they are talking about. Also, Pete Rose was on Bill Maher this week. They had a discussion about Rose not being in the hall of fame, also in relation to Bond's situation may keep him out. Rose basically said, maybe he dosn't need "thier" hall of fame. He's in the record books and 15 days a month, each month, he has 100's of fans a day lining up to get his autograph.

[go Yankees]

Shib -- fair enough...Rose and Bonds are very different though. Bonds is not personable and amiable the way Rose is. Bonds rubs his teammates the wrong way, was abusive with his ex Kimberly Bell, he is racist, he's harsh with the media...the list goes on. That unquestionably will work against him. Rose has MUCH more social capital than Bonds

then again, Rose's statement is more proof that what really matters when it is all said and done is your standing in the court of public opinion. Whereas Rose could come off as a victim of Commissioner Giammati's wrath, Bonds, well...people don't have "love" for Bonds like they do for Rose

[coffee-guy]

Just like the media to screw up the info. It's just more proof how the rumors start and they don't know shit about what they are talking about. Also, Pete Rose was on Bill Maher this week. They had a discussion about Rose not being in the hall of fame, also in relation to Bond's situation may keep him out. Rose basically said, maybe he dosn't need "thier" hall of fame. He's in the record books and 15 days a month, each month, he has 100's of fans a day lining up to get his autograph.

I ate dinner at a table right next to Pete Rose when I was in Las Vegas a few weeks ago - he looks terrible in person...

Oh and earlier that day I saw him signing autographs outside of a shop in Caesar's Palace and the ONLY way he would sign ANYTHING was if it came from within that particular shop (with a receipt blah blah blah)....

[hitmansb]

I can totally agree why Bonds should not be considered for the Hall of Fame; because he did in fact "cheat the game". But, how are you going to parallel Barry Bonds the same punishment to someone like Pete Rose - whose althetic talents were 100% natural- yet he is not in the Hall of Fame, and will never be. IMHO- that's the biggest travesty of all.

Keep in mind, Pete Rose broke the rules of MLB. This was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Barry Bonds HAS NOT broken the rules of MLB (to date). His alleged steroid use was during a period when steroids were not against the rules of MLB. He has been tested along with every other player since MLB banned steroids, and has always come up clean. There are pitchers who admit they 'doctored' baseballs in the hall....there are more guys in the hall that have used amphetamines than you could count. Barry Bonds is easy to dislike, but it's hardly fair to treat him differently than anyone else.

[hitmansb]

I ate dinner at a table right next to Pete Rose when I was in Las Vegas a few weeks ago - he looks terrible in person...

Oh and earlier that day I saw him signing autographs outside of a shop in Caesar's Palace and the ONLY way he would sign ANYTHING was if it came from within that particular shop (with a receipt blah blah blah)....

That shop payed big bucks for him to make an appearance there....it's only fair that people buy something there if they want an autograph.

[Scrumhalf]

Barry Bonds HAS NOT broken the rules of MLB (to date). His alleged steroid use was during a period when steroids were not against the rules of MLB. He has been tested along with every other player since MLB banned steroids, and has always come up clean.

Hitmansb, I am not sure this is entirely true. Baseball banned steroids towards the end of the 2002 season, and if I am not mistaken, Bonds has been implicated with use of steroids after the 2002 season. Now of course, they didn't begin testing until the 2004 season, but to me, that's a red herring. I don't believe that someone is a cheat only if he gets caught.

[hitmansb]

Hitmansb, I am not sure this is entirely true. Baseball banned steroids towards the end of the 2002 season, and if I am not mistaken, Bonds has been implicated with use of steroids after the 2002 season. Now of course, they didn't begin testing until the 2004 season, but to me, that's a red herring. I don't believe that someone is a cheat only if he gets caught.

I am under the impression that they banned/started testing for steroids in 2002 in the minor league system only. This is the evolution of MLBs policy as reported by USA today:

Evolution of the steroid policy

2002

• Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, players and owners agree to hold survey testing in 2003. If more than 5% of results from the anonymous tests are positive, formal testing and penalties will be put into place the next year.

2003

• Baseball announces after the season that 5% to 7% of test results were positive, triggering the new policy in 2004.

2004

• Each player is tested once a year in season. A first positive test results in treatment, followed by a 15-day suspension for a second positive and up to a year suspension for a fifth positive. The result is no player is suspended for steroid use.

2005

• Baseball agrees to a new policy. Banned substances include steroids, steroid precursors, designer steroids, masking agents and diuretics. There will be one unannounced mandatory test of each player during the season. In addition, there will be testing of randomly selected players, with no maximum number. And there will be random testing during the offseason. The penalties for a positive result are, first positive, 10 days; second, 30 days; third, 60 days; fourth, one year, and all without pay.


So, I interpret that as only agreeing to exploratory anonymous testing in 2002 in the big leagues, with an actual policy not being in place til 2004.

[coffee-guy]

That shop payed big bucks for him to make an appearance there....it's only fair that people buy something there if they want an autograph.

I agree - it just appeared to be pain in the ass because there was so much confusion. People would stand in line and get their picture taken (which was free) and as soon as they asked about autographs they would get hauled away. I found it all sort of ammusing :D.

[go Yankees]

Barry Bonds is easy to dislike, but it's hardly fair to treat him differently than anyone else.

absolutely true...I think Selig has his hands tied with this issue, just as he did when the grand jury testimony of Giambi was leaked before the 2005 season. All it will really boil down to is an embarrassing day for baseball, every time Barry Bonds has an at-bat...and of course, a long time before he enters the Hall of Fame

[hitmansb]

The best thing for MLB is if Barry has a monster season, breaks both Ruth and Aaron's HR marks, and then retires rather than coming back for another season. Put him into the hall first-ballot, and then the whole story can finally start fading away.

[redsquirrel]

The best thing for MLB is if Barry has a monster season, breaks both Ruth and Aaron's HR marks, and then retires rather than coming back for another season. Put him into the hall first-ballot, and then the whole story can finally start fading away.

Unfortunately, I do not see him getting voted in on first ballot- or any ballot for that matter.

ESPECIALLY if he breaks Aaron's and Ruth HR marks. That would make the whole thing even more tainted and leave an even worse taste in everyone's mouth.

There would be absolutely no glory gotten from Bonds by doing so, simply due to these allegations. No one would think he earned it. It would be a slap in the face to MLB, and the families of Aaron and Ruth. I don't understand how MLB would be glorified in any way by Bonds breaking these records. MLB would be laughed at for being such hipocrites. All it would do for MLB is make people think the league will turn a blind eye to doping as long as it creates an exciting season, and records are broken. Let alone provide no example to other players to hinder them from usage. THAT, IMHO- is horseshit.

[hitmansb]

Red...again...the burden of proof. Unless they zing Bonds with a positive test, he has done nothing so far in violation of the rules of MLB. To deny Bonds entry to the hall would start MLB (or any other sport, for that matter) on a slippery slope: how do you punish people retroactively for rule changes??? Do you wipe out all the wins of NHL goaltenders that used oversized equipment before this year, even though it was perfectly legal to do so at the time the infraction happened??? A lot of athletes in every sport did things that would now be considered against the current rules....but I don't see how you can punish them retroactively. You can't turn a blind eye to everyone except Barry Bonds, and then crucify him and him alone to set some kind of example. Punishing the cheats as per the current rules is enough...I'm sure Rafael Palmeiro is example enough...and his demise came about justly, with a current infraction of current rules.