Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
December 03, 2004
Bonds Falls

Signifying Nothing links to the next shoe to drop, Barry Bonds' testimony.


Bonds testified that he had 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.

Federal prosecutors confronted Bonds during his testimony on Dec. 4, 2003, with documents indicating he had used steroids and human growth hormone during a three-year assault on baseball's home run record, but the Giants star denied the allegations.


You should read the whole article. It's an interesting insight into Barry Bonds thought processes. It's very clear that he likes Greg Anderson, but it's also clear that Barry's not willing to make Anderson rich.

"Greg is a good guy, you know, this kid is a great kid. He has a child," Bonds said. At another point, he told the grand jury:

"Greg has nothing, man. ... Guy lives in his car half the time. He lives with his girlfriend, rents a room so he can be with his kid, you know?

"... This is the same guy that goes over to our friend's mom's house and massages her leg because she has cancer, and she swells up every night for months. Spends time next to my dad, rubbing his feet every night."

Bonds told the grand jurors that he had given Anderson a $20,000 bonus and bought him a ring after the 73-home run season. He also bought the trainer a ring to commemorate the Giants' 2002 World Series appearance. When a juror asked why the wealthy ballplayer hadn't bought "a mansion" for his trainer to live in, Bonds answered:

"One, I'm black, and I'm keeping my money. And there's not too many rich black people in this world. There's more wealthy Asian people and Caucasian and white. And I ain't giving my money up."


Which brings me back to the con game aspect of this story. Anderson is training Bonds and getting good results. So he then gets players refered to him. He says he's going to test them for mineral deficiencies, but tests them for steroids. When he finds a positive, he knows he has a player he can exploit. He doesn't need to have Barry on steroids for this to work, he just needs Barry to be successful.

So do I believe Bonds? Not really. Bonds probably has plausible deniability.


"I never asked Greg" about what the products contained, Bonds testified. "When he said it was flaxseed oil, I just said, 'Whatever.'

It's flaxseed oil, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more say no more. It's like saying that you don't know that McDonald's coffee is hot.

One point where I am on Bonds side, however, is the witch hunt aspect of this case.


Bonds' attorney, Michael Rains, said he was upset, though not entirely surprised, his client's secret testimony had been revealed. He said he had no proof but suspected the government was the source of the leak, insisting it had been out to get Bonds from the beginning.

"My view has always been this case has been the U.S. vs. Bonds, and I think the government has moved in certain ways in a concerted effort to indict my client," Rains said. "And I think their failure to indict him has resulted in their attempts to smear him publicly."

Playboylooked at the Balco Case. (Link is to my post, the article is no longer on-line). The gist was that IRS agent Jeff Novitzky wanted to get Bonds because he didn't like Barry. It wasn't "steroids are doing damage to the game I love, let's do something to clean it up" or "this is going to hurt our children if we don't stop it." It was driven by out and out hate. And that is wrong.

Bonds isn't the only name mentioned in the article, but he is the biggest. What happens next is anyone's idea. Will Selig have the guts to ban Barry? Should he ban Barry and Giambi and Sheffield? If you suspend Bonds for a year, you pretty much finish his chance at Aaron's record. If you ban him for life, you also prevent him from breaking Babe Ruth's record for a left-hander (somehow, I think Bonds wants to pass Ruth more than he wants to pass Aaron) and you keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Does the BBWAA revoke his last three MVPs? This story is far from over.


Posted by David Pinto at 08:46 AM | Cheating | TrackBack (8)
Comments

I still don't think you can take any action against any of the guys with nothing more than leaked grand jury testimony printed in a newspaper. That will not hold up in court. It is hearsay gotten via illegal conduct (it is illegal to divulge grand jury testimony.

Posted by: Robert at December 3, 2004 09:23 AM

More importantly, I don't think you can take action until we know definitively the actual effects that steroids has on baseball ability. An understated tragedy in this whole mess is that this will forever obscure Bonds' truly great accomplishments, juiced or not. The guy walked 200 something times last season. I may be naive, but I refuse to believe, until proven otherwise, that everything Bonds has done the past four seasons are due to steroid use. The guy was too good before, and his game is too dynamic, for it to be boiled down to steroid use.

Posted by: Daniel at December 3, 2004 10:28 AM

Leaked grand jury testimony is not hearsay if what is leaked is an accurate refection of that testimony. Grand jury testimony is leaked by the government all the time to gain public support for the prosecutor’s actions. The Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky scandal was a classic example of leaking for political gain.

I do not believe for one second that Bonds did not know what he was taking. The effects of steroids on athletes in general are obvious, that’s why they are banned across the board. Only in baseball to we have these ridiculous rationalizations about how using them doesn’t boost performance. The numbers speak for themselves. Bonds went from a guy who hit 40-50 homeruns his entire career to almost doubling that output in his late thirties. That is just unnatural. While ‘roids won’t transform you or me into a world class athlete, they will turn average into good, good into great, and in Bond’s case, great into legendary.

The league must take action. What separates Bonds from the rest of the many who have used steroids is that he broke the most coveted record – and gladly took credit for doing so. Much like Pete Rose, he is trying to carve out some space between the truth and his fan’s expectations. He is, so far, failing. Baseball needs to give him a two year timeout from playing. As mentioned, that would kill any hope of him breaking the all time HR record but he still would be eligible for the Hall of Fame - as there were presumably many years when he didn’t juice but still put up great numbers. That would be his just punishment for trying to cheat the game of baseball. The league cannot give him a free pass this time.

Posted by: les at December 3, 2004 10:58 AM

Les, how do you get that leaked testimony into court?

Posted by: Robert at December 3, 2004 11:00 AM

Sorry Les, but the only real evidence you have is he was on something in 03. You have no evidence he was on anything in any other year. Your asking to ruin a mans life on conjecture. I dont think you would want people doing that to you, destroying your life on a guessing game. This is Baseballs fault by the way.

Giambi admitted to using roids over several years so that case needs to be addressed seperately, though again it was not against baseball policy so I would find it disturbing if they took action.

If baseball had had policies about this, we would not have this problem, players would have been tested, there would be black and white evidence and that would be that. I would strongly support sever punishment for those that did. But we dont, and no many people want to go back and try to rework history. So you ban Bonds, and what about all the other players that are but did not testify? Do we go through and guess who was and who was not? So why Bonds then specifically, cause he might get a record? But then this is about the record book and not about Bonds. But then we need to look more closely at the Ruths record considering he did not play against the negro players of his time.

This whole thing is a mess, but unfortunately its a little to late to fix the past. What needs to happen and needs to happen today is baseball needs to institute a real policy now, with real punishment, so that this does not continue to plague this sport for more years to come.

And I find it interesting that Bonds testimony sounded exactly like Sheffields statements to ESPN. Yet everyone has basically forgotton that. I took them but I did not know what they were. This whole thing is about Bonds, its a vendetta against a man with a bad personality. Pathetic.

Posted by: Gregory at December 3, 2004 11:27 AM

It's not just that Anderson profited from Bonds being successful. Anderson profited from the perception that Bonds was doing something fishy to be so successful, such that other players wanted his secret.

Posted by: Crank at December 3, 2004 12:25 PM

>> The numbers speak for themselves. Bonds went from a guy who hit 40-50 homeruns his entire career to almost doubling that output in his late thirties.

Well this is factually incorrect. If you look at his HR totals, he's been consistently between 33 and 49 HR's every year since 1992, except for his outlier year of 2001. He was 40 or higher four times before, and three times after.

Posted by: achiappanza at December 4, 2004 12:05 PM

'"One, I'm black, and I'm keeping my money. And there's not too many rich black people in this world. There's more wealthy Asian people and Caucasian and white. And I ain't giving my money up."'

What a classy individual.

Posted by: Jack Tanner at December 6, 2004 08:48 AM

Boot these guys and strip the records. Juicing the ball all but ruined baseball, juicing the players is unacceptable

Posted by: HP at December 12, 2004 08:42 AM

The fact that Barry Bonds hit 33 to 49 homerus every year after 1992 doesnt take any speculation away from Bonds being on steroids. Barry bonds hit 40 hrs 4 times prior to 2001. 3 of 4 times he had over 517 at bats, and the one time he didnt he had 480 (2000).
Bonds recorded 476 AB in 2001, he also dropped 73 bombs (not to mention he was 18 pounds heavier than the previous year). Bonds has hit 45 hrs everyyear since bulking up and his at bats from 2002-2004 havent exceeded 403 and in 2004 he recorded 373.
From 1986-2000 Bonds career high in slugging % was .688, since then; 2001-.863, 2002-.799, 2003-.749, 2004-.812.
With 100+ at bats in 2002-2004 Bonds would have been around 60 hrs each year.

Posted by: brian at December 13, 2004 02:54 AM

Mr. Arrogance never hit 50 homeruns in his career then suddenly in his mid to late 30's gains 20 lbs of muscle and hits 73. The clear and the cream is so much horse manure. Hey guys lets have ten cocktails, get on the road and be pulled over and tell the judge: hey, I didn't know want I was drinking. The baseball press, the fans, the whole world has been so overly indulgent on this out and out, puffed up steroid monger that is sickens any conception of the level playing field. Clean up the sport now; even in the Olympics the druggies were stripped of their medals. Bonds should be banned from baseball; Pete comes up smelling like a Rose compared to this out and out Bonds sell off of the game.

Posted by: ukidding at March 2, 2005 02:25 AM

all i hear is barry knew he was taking steroids. come on. they say he took them in 2003, that was his worst year out of the last 5. and barry was always winning mvp's. he should have 9(he should of beat jeff kent. look up the stats) steroids does not make the hitter, ask alex sanchez. Barry said he used them for a little while. but stopped. no one believes him though. but sheffield is okay. the government is out to get barry. grand jury testimonys are not supposse to get out. 99.9 percent of the time they are not leaked. but in barry's case they were....come on

Posted by: Henry Phillips at June 15, 2005 11:25 PM

all i hear is barry knew what he was doing. sheffield is okay, but barry is a cheater. barry was winning home runs in the early 90's. he should have 9(he should of beat kent. look up the stats)you say he only hit 49 and then all of a sudden, he hits 73. i do believe barry had kent in the lineup that year. he never had support like that. and also, steriods don't make the player. ask alex sanchez. they say he took them in 2003, 2003 was his worst year out of the last 5. that is a little weird. and barry tells the truth, and nobody believes him. and grand jury testimonys are not supposed to be leaked. 99.9 percent of the time they are not, but in this case they were. can you say conspiracy..the playboy interview proves it was more hate than anything.. come on people he is the greatest, and always will be.. you should be watching him so you can tell your grandkids about him. instead you are just like everyone else. ron kittle fits in with all of you

Posted by: Henry at June 15, 2005 11:31 PM

sorry for the 2 comments being posted i thought it messed up the first one

Posted by: Henry at June 15, 2005 11:32 PM

and i meant barry was winning mvp's, i said home runs, i meant barry should have 9 mvp's

Posted by: Henry at June 15, 2005 11:33 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?