Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
April 26, 2007
Thoughts on Bonds

Barry Bonds hit his seventh home run of the season last night. He's now getting on base at a .470 clip and slugging .808. I'm totally amazed by this. Watching him play last April, I thought he was through. But as the season wore on he adjusted to his knees and elbow, and now he's approaching the averages he posted earlier in this decade. So what do we make of this fantastic start?

We're in the third year of serious drug testing, and no steroids or other PEDs turned up in Bonds. He allegedly tested positive for speed, but most don't put uppers in the same category as steroids. There is the possibility that Bonds uses something that isn't detectable. (Other than HGH. I hear now that HGH doesn't build strength.) But we also need to consider the possibility that the test are correct, and Bonds is free of perfomance enhancers.

In other words, we have to consider that a forty-two year old man with two surgically repaired knees and a surgically repaired elbow can still hit with the all-time greats. If this is true, if he can put up numbers like this old and disabled, how much did performance enhancers really help him? I'm not excusing Bonds for being a Baseball Jerk. But for the next few years there will be debates about Hall of Fame voting on people suspected of using steroids. If Bonds hits forty plus home runs with a .450 OBA and a .700 slugging percentage with his physical problems, and does so cleanly, that should be a positive for the suspected cheaters. It indicates that skill as a player might be a bigger factor in success than the extra strength gained from PEDs.

Of course, a reasonable person might say that someone couldn't accomplish this level of performance with those physical problems unless help came by way of chemicals. Given Bonds' history, that's a logical conclusion. But if he indeed is clean, then we need to step back and rethink if there's a real difference between clean records and tainted records. It may be tiny.


Posted by David Pinto at 07:48 AM | Players | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Look at Ken Caminiti's career (an admitted steroid user) and tell me that performance enhancing drugs don't make that big of a difference.

Posted by: Bryan at April 26, 2007 09:02 AM

I guess I'm skeptical that Bonds can put up these numbers over the course of an entire season. Let's wait another month or so before we have a conversation about how good he is now. Small sample sizes and all that.

Posted by: amos at April 26, 2007 09:05 AM

Another aspect to the "entire season argument" is what happens to the 42 year old when we get to the dog days.

My understanding is that one of the main attributes of the drug(s) in question is that it/they quicken recovery from the nagging aches and pains that plague players over the course of a six month season.

No one ever said that Bonds wasn't a talented enough hitter, but rather that he had some help. I'm not stunned that he's come out of the gate well, but the season is the Belmont, not a sprint.

Posted by: mikeski at April 26, 2007 09:33 AM

So scream my name in vain for being a Giants fan, but why totally--please note the word--accept what the baseball media/sportswriters have told us about how he's a cheater? Why totally discount his own words about what he says he did or didn't do? Those are rhetorical questions, I'm not implying that everyone does. In fact, I think that most baseball fans are a bit skeptical of the "Bonds as baseball's Anti-Christ" argument and tiring of it.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe--please note the word also--that he was taking some sort of PED latte to increase strength (sure), but, more likely to maintain his endurance. But, I also accept that he's an statistical outlier and has been for quite some time. It doesn't take that many trips to baseball-reference.com to note that he's unique. But, because he's unique, doesn't necessarily mean that he's a fraud. Hate him or, well, hate him--by the way, why does "everyone" hate him?--Bonds is and has been one of the greatest baseball players in baseball's storied history.

As the vitriol begins to build in readers who've determined what Bonds is and what Bonds isn't, I'd just like to ask people to question themselves more. In my opinion, the debate about Bonds, PED, etc is so much broader and deeper and more interesting than the facile crap like "he cheats = he sucks." But, I rarely see these arguments played out beyond baseball blogs, particularly Giants blogs.

So, yeah, I'm a Giants fan and I appreciate Bonds as a player and honestly don't judge him as a person. Actually, I defend his person somewhat because there's no way that he's the asshole that he plays on TV. What if, what if, Bonds continues to hit? 'Cause I'm watching Giants games on Comcast (thank you Comcast) and he's still an other-worldly hitter. I'm 37 and he's the only guy that I can recall from my lifetime who comes to bat and I have to see it. I have to see it because I almost expect him to walk or to hit a home run and I'm mesmerized by his confidence, his batting eye, and his bat.

Just a few thoughts and I'm happy that baseball's back.

Posted by: Kent at April 26, 2007 09:48 AM

Finally, someone with some common sense and a mind of his own. People need learn how to see with their own eyes and think with their own minds instead of being fed information and just regrgitating as their own original thought.

Posted by: Charles Slavik at April 26, 2007 10:38 AM

hmmm... I think part of the reason everyone thinks Bonds used steroids is the he, umm, said that he did in his sworn grand jury testamony. Now, he denied that he knew what he was taking, but he definitely admitted to using steroids. That's not debatable.
Further evidence includes: his trainer's connection with BALCO, the discovery of a calendar with his doping schedule, and his enormous head. Is all this circumstantial? Yes. But it's hardly the fabrications of a rabid media.
Look, this whole steroids things has been embarrassing for the media too. They were (are) complicit in this mess, and if they could have gone on ignoring it, they would have.

Posted by: amos at April 26, 2007 10:52 AM

Barry Bonds is a self-admitted PED user. The case is closed, the jury is out, its not up for debate.

You don't have to take the words of sportswriters or Barry-Haters. You don't have to analyze his weight gain or statistics. You don't have to go on "belief" - you know he cheated. He said he cheated.

He also was on a HoF track before he ever started taking PEDs. And he is the best hitter I've seen in my lifetime.

Posted by: cephyn at April 26, 2007 11:32 AM

Let's assume Bonds used steriods. When using steriods, you build strength & size. That Bonds has built a tremendous amount of size in his 30's is beyond question (i remember Pinto posting an article about how his shoe size has even grown). He no longer needs steriods to *maintain* his strength. It seems the decline he's had since his peak years is about what you'd expect from age.

Giambi is another example of maintaining most of his pre drug testing strength

Posted by: David at April 26, 2007 11:35 AM

There's no doubt Bonds has always been a statistical outlier, what's so puzzling from a statistical standpoint is that he reached a whole new plateau of outlying at the very age nearly every other hitter in the history of the game was on the decline.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=1109&position=LF&page=2&type=full

Posted by: Kyle J at April 26, 2007 11:36 AM

Literally off the charts in some cases!

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=1109&position=LF&page=1&type=full

Posted by: Kyle J at April 26, 2007 11:37 AM

Bonds 2006-07 seasons don't, in themselves, provide much evidence about the efficacy of the clear and the cream. They're just one data point, in the same way that Ben Johnson's collapse after the removal of stanazalol is another one.

Bonds was a great, great player in the early 90s, and that ought not to be forgotten, his involvement with PEDs later on notwithstanding.

Posted by: Mike Green at April 26, 2007 12:10 PM

"[...]there's no way that he's the asshole that he plays on TV."

Based on what he told his ex-mistress about how to beat the IRS, what Sheffield said in the SI article, Bonds' own statements about not caring what people think and having watched and listened to him since that start of his career, it is my belief that Bonds is precisely the asshole he appears to be.

A statistical outlier on that front, too.

Posted by: mikeski at April 26, 2007 12:54 PM

Barry Bonds never admitted to using steroids unknowingly. This is an outright distortion by the media of what Bonds said and you all are fools to believe it. Barry said he was given flazseed oil and arthretic balm by Greg Anderson and that he believed then that this is what they were and he still believes now that this is what they were. You can believe that Barry lied (but you have no proof) but you just can not honestly make the claim that Barrry admitted that he unknowingly used steroids.

Posted by: Mark Raines at April 26, 2007 12:58 PM

I'm sure that an ex-mistress is one hell of a credible witness to his character. Come on. This is the kind of stuff that I'm talking about.

Posted by: Kent at April 26, 2007 01:01 PM

Another point that just seems to get no attention is that Barry would have to be an absolute fool to even attempt to get steroids (detectable or undetectable) or HGH after 2003. Just where is Barry going to get these drugs without either getting narked out by his suppliers to the press for big dollars or decected by the Feds who are surely watching his every move? If any baseball player is clean since 2003 it is Barry because he simply does not have the personal freedom independent of the prying eyes of both the Feds and the Media to obtain any of these drugs.

Posted by: Mark Raines at April 26, 2007 01:04 PM

Kent,

I think the mere fact that he has an ex-mistress bears heavily on the "Is he the asshole he appears to be?" question.

And, again, it's not just her. Sometimes things are actually as they appear to be. Bonds has appeared to be a grade-A jerk for over 10 years. Why would the reaction then be "oh, he couldn't possibly be that bad"?

I hope the Giants, if the situation arises, have the sack to let him try to break the record away from home. Dollars to donuts the fan reaction would be vicious.

Also, while it's not like I sit and stew about this, I would definitely get some very small measure of satisfaction were Bonds to retire without being on on a Series winner.

Posted by: mikeski at April 26, 2007 01:53 PM

Before steroids, before investigations, before millions of dollars, before anything, Bonds was but a collegiate All-American at Arizona State. Though he was easily the best player on the team, and indeed one of the best in the country, his teammates voted him off the team by a 22-2 margin.

To argue that Bonds didn't performance enhance is going to be a trying venture, with all the evidence to the contrary. But to argue that he isn't an asshole is downright impossible.

Posted by: Derek Nelson at April 26, 2007 02:47 PM

1. Bonds can still hit.

2. He can be a jerk.

3. He most likely was facing a number of pitchers on PEDs too. That's always annoyed me in the discussion; no one points at the pitchers (say, for example, diminutive relievers asked to throw 99-100 mph consecutive days, or three out of five days).

4. The truth of No. 3 doesn't absolve Bonds, but merely points to the hypocrisy that still exists in this effort to "get" him.

5. I haven't seen them erase any of Norm Cash's homers from the books. (Or those of any players "cheating" in old-fashioned ways.)

Posted by: Ken at April 26, 2007 03:13 PM

Look, here we are getting into what he is and what he isn't. My point about the "asshole" thing is that I don't know him and the only stories that I know of him are negative ones from fans and sportswriters and people with axes to grind like ex-mistresses. I think that he's a complicated individual with an incredible drive and intelligence and, perhaps paradoxically, that's he's probably very sensitive as well. What I don't buy is that he's universally "bad." I don't buy it.

Arrogant? Yeah, but I don't care if he's arrogant; he's one of the best hitters ever and he knows it. So what. I'm sure that us peons and wanna-be professional athletes would consider most real professional athletes "arrogant." Hell, how many of us work with men and women who're arrogant? What's more, I'm sure that many readers of baseball blogs and sports fans and sports writers and teleprompter readers cheat on their wives, treat their kids like crap, etc. I don't and I don't condone such behavior, but I've never walked an inch in their shoes or in Bonds' either. My point is that I'm not going to condemn Bonds' personality and I'm not going to equate it with cheating, which many seem to do. Seriously, read the responseds that people post and write about him. Many are so sure that he's an "asshole" that anecdotes are quickly placed into that "reality." Do we baseball fans hear or read anything to the contrary? No, no we don't. Instead, for example, we'll get some writer in some city with no connection to Bonds writing about what an "asshole" he is. It's just too easy and people and life are much more complicated.

I would just add that we know about what Bonds said in Grand Jury because someone leaked his testimony. I'm pretty sure that we'd be pretty pissed if such a thing was done to us. Also, and I think that this is in his testimony, he has claimed that what he was given by Greg Anderson "didn't work" and that he stopped taking it in the near term.

Also, he's been investigated for perjury for YEARS now and nothing's come of it. Frankly, I think that the conclusion to the investigation was sold to the USAttorney's Office before it could be proven and that the IRS is too afraid to back off at this point. To be sure, Novitsky is gunning for him and no law enforcement officer should be gunning for any citizen in this manner...and I write that to each of you as a law enforcement officer.

People will certainly boo Bonds and debate his legacy for years to come. (I like the debate, it's one of the things that makes baseball great.) I would note to each of you here that when Bonds hits HRs in other stadiums, he isn't roundly booed. Yeah, some boo him, but many cheer him as well. Again, baseball, like life, is complicated and I think that baseball fans aren't as docile as many writers and sportscasters portray 'em.

Okay, back to work. Have a nice day guys (and gals).

Posted by: Kent at April 26, 2007 03:36 PM

I don't think anyone is arguing that Barry Bonds has not behaved like a jurk many times. What they are arguing is two things:

1) Nobody could be as big a jurk as the media portrays Barry Bonds to be.

2) Since when does one have to be a saint to be accepted as one of the greatest baseball players of all times (perhaps even the greatest)? Ted Williams, Joe Dimaggio, Micky Mantle, Frank Robinson, and Reggie Jackson were all known jurks. Babe Ruth and Willie Mays were anything but saints. Ty Cobb was the nastiest baseball player to ever wear a MLB uniform, a known racist, and a suspected murderer. Being a nice guy (like Aaron, Banks, and Gerig) is just not a hall of fame requirement.

Posted by: Mark Raines at April 26, 2007 03:46 PM

Anyone else think Mark is delusional?

He admitted it dude. Sorry. He used the cream and the clear. He didn't know what it really was, OK. But the BALCO guys said it PED. Other players confirmed it, and confirmed Barry used the same stuff they used (sometimes from the same jars) that was PED.

In Barry's defense, when he started using, the steroids were not banned by baseball. And if he was really unknowing about what he was using, OK. I get it. And he's the best hitter I've ever seen.

And he's a jerk.

And if he puts chemicals into his body, not knowing what they are or what they do, as a professional athlete where his physical fitness is his livelihood, he's an idiot.

Posted by: cephyn at April 26, 2007 03:55 PM

The Balco guys did not confirm it. They said they gave cream and clear to Greg but they assumed some of it was for Barry but they did not know if Barry actually got any of it.

Barry again did not admit getting the cream and the clear. Barry admitted getting flazseed oil and arthretic cream. Again, you may think Barry is lying (even though both you and the Feds can not prove that he is) but it you that is actually lying if you continue to say that Barry admitted it.

Barry did not say he didn't know what he was taking. Barry said he was told, believed then, and believes now that what he was taking was flaxseed oil and arthretic balm. You don't really expect Barry (or any other athlete) to have every single supplement he uses tested to make sure it is what he is told it is do you?

Posted by: Mark Raines at April 26, 2007 04:13 PM

The Balco guys did not confirm it. They said they gave cream and clear to Greg but they assumed some of it was for Barry but they did not know if Barry actually got any of it.

Barry again did not admit getting the cream and the clear. Barry admitted getting flazseed oil and arthretic cream. Again, you may think Barry is lying (even though both you and the Feds can not prove that he is) but it you that is actually lying if you continue to say that Barry admitted it.

Barry did not say he didn't know what he was taking. Barry said he was told, believed then, and believes now that what he was taking was flaxseed oil and arthretic balm. You don't really expect Barry (or any other athlete) to have every single supplement he uses tested to make sure it is what he is told it is do you?

Posted by: Mark Raines at April 26, 2007 04:13 PM

The problem with the reliance on the illegally leaked grand jury testimony is you are not seeing the testimony in its entirety or in context.

And much of what I've seen in print has been regurgitated badly by subsequent "tellers of the tale".

What we do know is this. If the evidence against Bonds is as overwhelming as most say, why hasn't the DA been able to bring down an idictment.

I'm sure we've all heard the phrase about being able to indict a ham sandwich. Well, it seems like it's taking a long time for these guys to be able to put a case together.

The grand jurors heard the evidence in its totality and yet we have nothing. Unless they're pulling grand jurors for this case from the OJ trial roster, how does one explain this away?

Posted by: Charles Slavik at April 26, 2007 04:23 PM

"Bonds said that, to his knowledge, Anderson had only given him legal drugs to treat his arthritis and fatigue, which were especially bad when the Giants would play a day game after a night game. He said the trainer brought the substances to the Giants' clubhouse, where Bonds would use them.

"It was in the ballpark ... in front of everybody," Bonds testified. "I mean, all the reporters, my teammates. I mean, they all saw it. I didn't hide it.""

"Bonds' former teammates Armando Rios, Benito Santiago and Bobby Estalella, as well as former Oakland A's Jason and Jeremy Giambi, have admitted using performance-enhancing drugs provided by Anderson. All the players said they knew Anderson because he was Bonds' trainer"

"Anderson, in a secretly recorded conversation, claimed Bonds had used an "undetectable" steroid in 2003. Conte and BALCO vice president James Valente also told investigators that Anderson gave steroids to Bonds"

"According to the Chronicle, Gary Sheffield also testified that in 2002 Bonds arranged for him to receive "the clear," "the cream" and "red beans," steroid pills manufactured in Mexico. Sheffield further stated he was never told he was using steroids; that Bonds was using both "the cream" and "the clear"; and that he had no dealings with Anderson directly.

"Nothing was between me and Greg. Barry pretty much controlled everything," Sheffield testified. "... It was basically Barry (saying), 'Trust me, do what I do.'

"...I know I've seen Greg give Barry the same thing I was taking," Sheffield said. "I didn't see him taking those red beans, but I seen him taking this (clear) and this cream here.""

Sorry, I guess that all sounds to me like he did PEDs. Possibly unknowingly.

And Charles, the grand jury testimony had nothing to do with indicting barry bonds. It was about making a case against BALCO. And guys from BALCO WERE indicted. So seems they are definitely putting a case together. You just are confused about what the case is about.

The only possible legal pursuit of Bonds would be if he lied while testifying, if he actually knew he was taking steroids and said he didn't. And no, they havent gone after him. I don't think you could prove it. So he has the benefit of the doubt there.

Posted by: cephyn at April 26, 2007 04:37 PM

Oh, and they got a conviction on BALCO too. So seems its all wrapped up nicely, Slavik.

The founder of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, Victor Conte, was sentenced to four months in prison Tuesday for providing professional athletes with performance-enhancing drugs. A longer sentence was prevented by guidelines regarding steroid distribution.

Posted by: cephyn at April 26, 2007 04:42 PM

If he used illegal methods to add 50-100 pounds of muscle in the past, and now that muscle is largely still just sitting there even without further illegal aid, you still have to discount his performance as due to illegal activity.

Posted by: point in time at April 26, 2007 04:54 PM

Look, here we are getting into what he is and what he isn't. My point about the "asshole" thing is that I don't know him and the only stories that I know of him are negative ones from fans and sportswriters and people with axes to grind like ex-mistresses. I think that he's a complicated individual with an incredible drive and intelligence and, perhaps paradoxically, that's he's probably very sensitive as well. What I don't buy is that he's universally "bad." I don't buy it.

Except that you're doing the same thing; on what, exactly, are you basing the assertion that he can't be as bad as advertised?

Look, you're a fan, you know how the star game works. There are entourages and hangers-on, not to mention paid professionals, who devote their time to advancing the public persona of their particular gravy train(s)/client(s). Do you really think that if there truly were redeeming features to Bonds, we wouldn't have heard about them by now? That there wouldn't be stories in any press, anywhere (outside of SF), extolling Bonds on every occasion possible to counteract the effect of him opening his own mouth? How is it that Bonds doesn't have his defenders on the personality issue?

I have no doubt that every player, on some level, has to be arrogant; it's tied in with the drive that you describe Bonds as having. I would agree there; it's obvious to me that to succeed at the level that these guys do, you have to have the ability to look in the mirror and say, "F--k that guy, I know I can hit major league pitching" or strike guys out or what have you.

But this isn't just arrogance. And this isn't some writers saying Bonds is an asshole and some saying he isn't that bad. This is everybody, all the time, saying "this guy is a bad guy", irrespective of whether they think he did the drugs.

And I don't "equate" his personality with cheating. I'm a lawyer by trade and, while I think he used (based on, if nothing else, the ridiculously abnormal bodily changes late in his athletic life), I am willing to concede that, absolutely, I don't know that he did (and the failure to bring charges by now certainly is relevant to the discussion); the fact that he is so arrogant, to me, suggests that he may have thought that he could get away with it, just as he has been getting away with everything since he was 6 or 8 years old, because he hits a baseball better than 99.9% of the population.

I don't know Barry Bonds either. I only know what I see and what I hear with my own eyes. And what I don't see and don't hear, as well.

Posted by: mikeski at April 26, 2007 04:56 PM

I'm with the lawyer above on Bonds--- do I *know* he's a cheater, in the legal sense of convictability? No way. But I certainly *think* he is, based on what I've seen. Anyway, as a Dodger fan I've been booing Barry for being an arrogant jerk since long before the steroid scandal surfaced. It's important to note, though, that part of that booing is because he's been the best hitter in all of baseball over the past 15 years. There's no point in booing Bobby Estalella or Derrick Turnbow. I boo Bonds because as much as I disrespect the guy on a personal level, I respect his abilities as a player. And that goes beyond his home run power; the man has a mastery of the strike zone that's just uncanny. And remember, he's got 500 stolen bases, too.

Posted by: Adam Villani at April 26, 2007 05:18 PM

I think Kent's point was not that he can't be a jerk but that he is not as bad as he has been demonized in the general press. He can be very nice and charming at times and very jerky at other times. I wouldn't advocate that behavior, but his bad side is all that gets publicized, particularly by the general media, so that is what people see him as.

Regarding Bonds testimony, it has been a fallacy that Bonds "admitted" to using steriods. He admitted to using the flaxseed oil and arthritic balm that his trainer gave him, and the Feds are accusing him of using because those materials are very similar to Balco's two steriod products. El Lefty Malo did an interview with a Giants reporter, Andrew Baggarly - http://haloscan.com/tb/leftymalo/9205321220037253112 - where the reporter noted this exact misinformation that is spread by the media and now by fans. It is in answer to the question on whether Bonds is given a raw deal or not, and at the end of his answer.

If the Feds are so desperate to get Bonds that they tried to encourage Jason Grimsley to try to get Bonds to confess while he is wired, when Grimsley basically has no linkage to Bonds other than they are major leaguers, I would find it incredible if there is not a Federal agent following his every move and probably the moves of anyone close to him. Listening devices galore. And they probably have their own personal X-ray machine set up at Bonds' local post-office and FedEx to examine every package headed his way. I don't see how Bonds can sneak anything in.

And steriods effects don't last long, as one poster suggested above, that's why they have to take it throughout the year and get multiple doses. Thus it couldn't be helping him now, and it is doubtly that it helped him last year either.

About HGH, the news on that I first saw on the Sabernomics blog - http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/i-dont-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball-and-neither-should-you/ - and it sounds pretty conclusive that HGH does nothing physically for you, at least from a baseball sense. The main thing is that it results in acromegaly, side effects which makes the shrunken testicles that result from steriods seem like no big deal.

There are a number of problems with relying on the words of a jilted lover, particularly one who said that she was planning on writing a book. She can get away with a lot of lying because the accused can never prove a negative in a "he said/she said" type of situation. If you've ever read through her "testimony" I was struck by how perfect the information was. Perfect in that if my sugar daddy ballplayer just broke up with me and I'm not too happy about it, what can I do about it?

What I could do is research on the internet every accusation that has been hurled on said ballplayer plus check out other things that other ballplayers have been accused of. Everything was there, the big head, the pimples on the back, the jealousy of other ballplayers, the rage. Plus she threw in the cheating on baseball cards income.

So for me the litmus test on whether she is lying has been the baseball card income. That can be proved, particularly since she gave specific details about it and when. And after 3 years, there has been nothing, even though I'm sure IRS agent Novitsky is working hard on that to bring down Bonds. How hard can it be to prove that?

In any case, it doesn't make sense that Bonds would be caught by this. Willie McCovey was caught up in this early in Barry's career, during the 90's, you don't think he gave either Willie Mays or Barry Bonds (or both) an earful about the IRS when that happened? So Barry should have been wary of this already.

You throw in that Barry has a very keen business sense, which I got from seeing and hearing extended interviews with him in the SF Bay Area, plus the fact that he was savvy enough to hire a lawyer specifically to handle Balco, meaning either he was smart enough or his advisors were smart enough, it does not make sense that he would risk the notoriety and possible legal repercussions just to save maybe $50,000 (my guess, I recall her mentioning $100,000 in card income, max tax around 50% due to high CA state taxes) when he is pulling down $10-20M per year. And that is presuming he doesn't shelter his income in some way.

About pitchers using, I saw what I thought was circumstantial evidence that a significant number of pitchers were using. One site, I believe it was The Hardball Times, did an analysis of percentage of players who hit a certain range of homers, like 0-5, 6-10, etc. The middle range of homers went up a lot when the steroid era was compared with an earlier era (don't remember the years of that), which shows that a lot of hitters used. The lowest range was pretty much the same. However, the biggest sluggers when down, relative to the past, rather than higher. Even if these hitters were using steroid, that fact that it went down when all the other categories went up, suggests that the proportion of pitchers using, while not as prevalent as hitters, was signficant enough to affec the HR total for the best sluggers I wish I could find the article but I cannot locate it right.

Posted by: obsessivegiantscompulsive at April 26, 2007 05:34 PM

Jebus man. Barry admitted to using steroids. why is this so hard? Let's put it in 4 simple sentences:

Barry takes clear and cream (flaxseed oil and balm) from Anderson. Barry gives "flaxseed oil and balm" to Sheffield, the EXACT SAME STUFF BARRY IS USING FROM THE SAME CONTAINERS. Sheffield says the clear and cream were actually steroids, he didn't know it either. Anderson is CONVICTED, GUILTY of distributing steroids to pro athletes.

Where's the raw deal there? Them's the facts. And there are other players who were given the same stuff by Anderson that Barry was using - they know this because they were all using it, in the open, in the clubhouse. It wouldnt have mattered what it was, because it wasn't against baseball rules at the time. But it was indeed PEDs.

It took a long, long time to bring a case against Enron too, btw. But it's immaterial. The case against Barry isn't whether or not he took steroids - HE ALREADY ADMITTED HE DID. It's whether he knew about it and lied by saying he didn't (perjury) and a separate charge of tax evasion.

Posted by: cephyn at April 26, 2007 05:42 PM

Well cephyn, it seems like you may be the one who doesn't understand how things are going in this case and who the target is/was. Do you honestly think they spent the amnount of taxpayer dollars that have been incurred so far simplyto get Conte and Anderson? And the meter is still running.

If the target was BALCO/Conte/Anderson they have all they needed, right? No reason to keep interviewing people, right (although, they are). As you might say, case closed.

I guess you must believe everything your government or the newspapers tell you. They never lie or mislead, do they?

Try to keep the name calling to a minimum, it's not really an effective debate strategy. I don't know Mark personally, but his argument did not sound delusional, unless your definition of that term is anyone that disagrees with your point of view.

Obsessivegiantscompulsive makes a lot of sense with his comments about HR across "power-lines" and back them up with good statistical analysis.
You might want to adopt his debate strategy/tactics.

Posted by: Charles Slavik at April 26, 2007 06:51 PM

rofl never called anyone names. also, i have backed up what i've said, and you've yet to poke a hole in it. You've resorted to conspiracy theories that the gov't is lying and newspapers have a vendetta against bonds. Is that really all you have?

Of course they keep interviewing people, because one of their key witnesses is stonewalling them. A convicted criminal in the case. He refuses to speak. He's the one making appeals up the court system. He's the one that keeps getting sentenced for contempt. It's not the US Attorney's office wasting the taxpayer dollars, its Anderson. And the DA (wisely) will not go forward until they have his testimony. He is compelled to give it to them, yet he refuses - and so he sits in jail, and so the investigation stalls. Those are facts. It's not a point of view.

They don't have all they need because witnesses are willing to sit in jail instead of tell the truth. They know Barry did the steroids, but did Barry know? Did Barry evade paying taxes? Those are the facts they don't have yet. Those are the ones they're trying to get.

What's the problem with the 4 simple sentences above? Those are all facts. They are not a point of view. I did not imagine them. They are not part of a government/press conspiracy.

In my book, if you ignore facts and discount them due to nebulous conspiracy theories - yes, you are delusional. If you refuse to believe things people said they did, you are delusional. But that may just be my point of view....

Maybe you don't like people who have facts in a debate. Maybe you think sworn statements are inadmissible in a debate. But usually, those things are considered pretty strong support for an argument. Then again maybe you just think the entire US Justice system is a scam and a fraud and a conspiracy to waste taxpayer dollars. So be it.

Posted by: cephyn at April 26, 2007 07:06 PM

pinto - Amphetamines do help. They've dine multiple studies on this before, and they do correlate with performance enhancement. Bonds using it could enhance his reaction time, thus enabling him to get his bat to the ball quicker. There's undetectable Greenies out there right now - Who's to say Bonds isn't using that now?

All that said, Bonds is still the best player of his era, and possibly all-time - His combination of power and speed with patience is remarkable - He never needed PED'S or anything to rise to greatness.

Posted by: Hogger at April 26, 2007 11:07 PM

cephyn, try and stay on point.

You're the one who said the case was about BALCO, now you indicate it's about Bonds, which is it?

"Oh, and they got a conviction on BALCO too. So seems its all wrapped up nicely, Slavik."
(from your post)

Posted by cephyn at April 26, 2007 04:42 PM

Name calling?:
"Anyone else think Mark is delusional?"
( from your post)
Posted by cephyn at April 26, 2007 03:55 PM


Actually, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, except to disagree with people and cut and paste quotes from your collection, so I thought I try it with yours, it's a cute exercise that doesn't really accomplish anything.

I agree with David's original article, have thought at least the same myself. He makes some valid point.
At some point some folks may have to admit they were seriously wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------
More Improtantly:

YOUR FOUR SIMPLE SENTENCES ARE GARBAGE (IMO), I'LL POINT OUT THE HOLES IN YOUR ARGUMENT IN CAPS BELOW.

1) THEY ASSUME BONDS AND SHEFF ARE LYING, WHICH THEY MAY BE, BUT THE ONUS IS ON THE PROSECUTORS TO PROVE IT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. DO YOU HAVE SUCH PROOF, NEWLY-MINTED FEDERAL PROSECTORS IN SF ARE STANDING BY.

You presume that the sworn statements that you believe to be true are true, my position is the Justice system will decide eventually. So far, they aren't buying what the government is selling. Remember, Bonds and Sheffield were under oath also. So if part of your "evidence" is sworn statements of witnesses are solid evidence

What you seem to be saying is, I agree with what the leaked testimony tells me and I don't need to hear anything else, but this ignores the portions of that same leaked testimony that says that he used something from Anderson for a short-time and in a manner that given what we know about the product, would not have been effective anyway. 2) THAT'S A HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT YOU NEED TO ANSWER. AND A HUGE ONE IN MY OPINION. IF WE BELIEVE THE TESTMONY, THE STUFF WOULDN'T WORK.

He used it for a short time and told Anderson something along the lines of "Dude, this stuffs not working" (I'm sure you can find THAT quote and cut and past it into your reply) A lot of people more expert than me about these substances say that if that's the way they tried to apply it, for that period of time, the level of enchancment would be about zero.

You seem to want to pick and choose what portions of the testimony you want to disclose and use as "evidence" and that's the whole basis of why I generally reject it as "evidence". It passed through the filter of the person illegally leaking it and the filter of the person reporting it. And that WOULD make a mockery and a sham of the Justice system.
3) THAT'S ALSO (IMO) A HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU NEED TO ARGUE WHY THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS VALID, WHEN BY IT'S NATURE LEAIKNG IT IS A CRIME.

I assume part of your your answer will be that they are lying about that, to which my response will unfortunately be, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT. Or the prosecutors do.

It seems to go against human nature to believe Anderson is protecing Bonds (when all we hear is what a huge prick he is) against the cumlative weight of the Federal Government. Just think of how miserable they could make his life.

People say things and swear to things in court all the time, that later turn out not to be true, that not nebulous consiracy theory, that's a healthy dose of skepticism when and where it's warranted. You should try it some time. we just don't know at this point exactly who is lying and where.

The target of the BALCO investigation from Day One was Barry Bonds (IMO) otherwise, as you said earlier, this would be "wrapped up nicely". But it's clearly not, it continues.

See, your "evidence" and argument is based on certain assumptions, that Anderson has testimony to give them. It also conveniently neglects that if his testimony includes information that might implicate himself, he is not "compelled" to give it to them.

So his silence may in fact be a form of self-protection, not Barry protection. The difference between us, you see, is I don't presume to know what Anderson knows or why he doesn't testify, you do.
4) THIS IS ANOTHER HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT THAT YOU NEED TO ANSWER. WHY IS ANDERSON SILENT?

That's one of the holes in your "story" or as you like to call it, evidence. Why would the two people who had the most to gain by rolling over and give up Barry Bonds, not do it?

And pay for it with a conviction (Conte) and a chance to rot in jail for a considerable amount of time (Anderson).

But I'm sure you'll know the answers to those seemingly, unknowable questions. See, until I know for sure why Anderson hasn't cashed his get out of jail free card (testify against Barry) yet, I don't "know" what happened. You can act like you do all you want, you don't "know" either.

I find sometimes, it's the intelligent answer, to say I don't know for sure, rather than to act like you do. There's still a couple of questions I'd like answered first. I'll try to remain open-minded though, maybe you should try it too.

Sometimes, it's good to remember the phrase "It's better to keep ones mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt"

Again IMO Tax Evasion is easy to enough to prove and they'd have gone forward with that by now if they had the evidence there. This is not Enron, it's an individual, even though he may have his business affairs set up in a quasi-corporate structure.

I just don't believe they want this to end up like an Al Capone case, too high profile, too much money spent at this point t come up that empty.

And they didn't do all this to hit Victor Conte with that weak of a sentence. If they did, and they know the sentencing guidelines, then it was a huge waste of money and a fraud.

In fact, that's where they would have the best chance to win, tax court, because there, like in the court of public opinion, the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence, not the other way around.

See, you would like to convict in the court of public opinion for the PED side of the issue, and use the same standard of proof.

Again, your quotes from the leaked grand jury testimony are not what I would consider "evidence" until they are presented in a public trial, where the question, the answer, the context are all on display, not select pieces of evidence. Sorry, that's not the American System of Justice.

I'm not ignoring your "evidence", I consider all evidence, however, I feel free to acceprt or reject it. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

"Gov't lying and media with a vendetta." Never happens right? Ask the kids on the Duke lacrosse team about what it takes for "one governement official with some power an an agenda". Read carefully what I said and don't expand it to the entire governernment. It only takes one rogue official, not the whole government.

I think the Justice system generally work fairly (OJ is an anomaly), I'm not sure why those sworn to protect the system and work withing it's parameters occasionally feel the need to stray from the ideal.

So, you have your four simple sentences, which I haven't ignored, I've chosen to reject them. If you don't understand why I've rejected them, sorry I can't help you out any further.

But seriously, cephyn, I would be interested in you trying to answer my FOUR SIMPLE HOLES IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

Try to answer them DIRECTLY, without name-calling or misdirection. They are numbered, IN CAPS and easy to find. Should be no problem for you to answer, and you seem to have all the answers, so this should be interesting.

Posted by: Charles Slavik at April 26, 2007 11:26 PM

It's not true that Bonds' use of steroids cannot be helping him any longer. Muscles have a "memory" and once a certain level of physical development has been attained, such development can be more easily re-attained, though not to the extent possible if steroids were still being taken. So, having gotten bigger and stronger than he could have without the use of PEDs, he will always have an advantage, as long as he watches his diet and trains hard. Of course that is another advantage of steroid use. The extra testosterone makes one more aggressive, and that makes training intensively easier. So it's harder without the steroids, but not impossible. And amphetamines would help provide the intensity to continue to train hard and lift heavy, absent the steroids.

Posted by: Rand at April 27, 2007 12:11 AM

Rand - But the use of creatine does the same thing. Allows you to hit the gym longer, and harder, is that an unfair advantage too?

Posted by: Rand at April 27, 2007 01:04 AM

Hmmm...I didn't post the reply to my comment. But, to whoever did, creatine is not the same at all. It has none of the harmful side effects of steroids or amphetamines and is legal. The problem with PEDs is simply the unfair advantage gained by those who use them at the expense of those who don't. Training hard, eating a healthy diet, hell, trying to improve fielding and hitting prowess by taking extra practice are all good things. Feeling pressured to injure one's health in order to stay in pro baseball because others are degraded enough to indulge in illegal drugs is the crux of the problem. Players should be able to compete on a level field without having to risk their health or their very life by the use of PEDs.

Posted by: Rand at April 27, 2007 01:47 AM

Wow. OK the first part is pretty easy: you see, there was a case, taken to a grand jury, about BALCO. Barry Bonds was a witness to the grand jury in this BALCO case. This case was taken to court, there were indictments. And then there were convictions. This case is closed.
Now. Barry Bonds is under further investigation for perjury. This investigation has not had indictments (as of this time) - it is a completely separate case.
Two different cases. Got that? Two separate cases. One is wrapped up, with convictions. The other is still ongoing.

So here's your answers.
1)Uh, I never said Barry was guilty of perjury. I never said he knew he was taking steroids. But in the decided BALCO case, those gentlemen were found guilty of supplying steroids to athletes. And the government suspects Bonds of lying, but he's innocent until proven guilty. So maybe he didnt know. But so is Sheffield, and he says what Bonds gave him and what Bonds was also using was steroids. Giambi, admitted user, has said that the calenders Anderson used were the same system as the calendars found in Bonds' file. That's pretty strong evidence that Bonds was on steroids, even if he didn't know it. I don't know if Barry was lying or not. It doesn't matter to me - what he was using was steroids. That's the truth.

2) Given what we know about it, it wouldn't work. Fine. I never said Barry benefitted from steroids, just that he still used steroids. Barry Bonds used PED's, regardless of their effectiveness, that's what they were meant to do - be PED's. You're awful defensive about this.

3) So leaking evidence makes the evidence invalid? The leaking of the testimony didn't change the content of it. If it was true before, it's true now, leaking didn't change the past. And remember, the case this testimony was originally taken for is over. Done. And the individuals were convicted. As for the leak, it was indeed a criminal act, and the lawyer who did it went to jail. At no time during that trial was the veracity or the accuracy of the leaked testimony in question.

4) Barry Bonds has paid Conte and Anderson quite a bit of money. Conte is back out already and already has a sports nutritional supplement business again, with Barry as a sponsor and a client. So I don't see why he would feel the need to roll over, he knew he wasn't going to be in jail long. Anderson is an interesting case. It really appears that either he's been promised a big payoff when the gov't gives up because they need his testimony (the only logical reason he's still in jail in the first place) or he's a real true friend of Bonds. Or both. No one knows why he's not talking, except him and maybe his lawyer. But he wouldn't be in jail unless they knew what he had to say was crucial to the case.

So there's your 'holes' answers. None of the holes though. It's a simple fact that Barry Bonds used steroids, possibly unknowingly so. That's all I've really said. I dont know if it helped his on-field performance. I don't know if he used them and then stopped soon after, or was a long time habitual user. But he did use them. And he's still the best hitter I've ever seen.

And since when did questioning someone's opinion-making process become namecalling? If you believe something to be true in the face of accepted facts, you are delusional. That doesn't make you a bad person or someone to be loathed, it just means you're a little loopy when it comes to this case.

The evidence from the GJ testimony was on display, it was used to convict the BALCO guys. American Justice in action.

My feelings aren't hurt. It doesn't make me feel worse about myself that you refuse to believe what's in front of you. Actually, makes me feel a little better about myself.

Barry Bonds took steroids. Period. Nothing you've brought up contradicts that.

Dunno you're still interested. I'm getting bored.

Posted by: cephyn at April 27, 2007 04:34 PM

I'll just repeat that I agree with the premise of David Pinto's original post. Everything else is getting further from that point.

I will say that I consider BALCO to be one "case". Always have. I don't separate because I've always believed that the charges against Conte and Anderson were a tool to "get" Bonds. Nothing that's happened since has caused me to change my mind. But that may explain some of the confusion on the prior point. The rest is nit-picky details.

Bonds is probably the greatest offensive force of this generation of ballplayers, maybe all-time, pre-BALCO as well as post-BALCO. I think that's the gist of the original post and I agree with that.

I've always been of the opinion that PED, whether it be steroids, HGH or greenies has significantly less effect on the statistics then other factors (smaller parks, springier baseball, etc.). And there are the other obvious side factors that come into play that make this far from boring.

The other forces at work that shape and mold this case are viewed by each individual according to their own biases or preconceived notions about the individuals involved.

Cephyn, you're absolutely correct, that doesn't make anyone a bad person or delusional for that matter. They just see things the way they do.

Time and future events may change perceptions, to be sure. If A-Rod hits 80 homeruns this year or 800+ in his career, if 10-20 years down the road, Bonds is moved from 1st on the list to 10th then maybe the trail leads in another direction. Who knows? Hopefully we'll know more tomorrow than we do today.

Obviously it's not as simple an issue as some would like to believe or there wouldn't be so much discussion about it. It would be a case closed and people would get bored talking about it. But that's not the case, people want to talk about seemingly every day. You wonder what they're going to get their rocks off on when Barry's gone. Look out A-Rod.

The point of the article, as I read it, is even if BB took steroids (knowingly or unknowingly) it may very likely have had very little effect on his assault on the record. That seems to be David's point and I agree with him on it, perhaps for different reasons.

Too many interesting facets to this to ever be boring my friend.

Peace.

Posted by: Charles Slavik at April 28, 2007 01:32 AM

Barry Bonds is an asshole. No doubt about it. It is pretty obvious he's sticking around to break the record. He's probably using something else now which is undetectable.

So lets all hope A-Rod or some other player comes along and goes even higher.

Posted by: shredhead at May 23, 2007 12:39 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?