OT: What To Think of Barry Bonds Now?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Precisely my point. Jordan was a "good guy," so the fans overlooked the fact that he "retired" and played baseball for a year shortly after allegations of gambling surfaced. Here, all we have is similar "facts" - also known as allegations - and people want to "hold it against him." Funny how none of this talk came up with Jordan.

The difference is, I believe the NBA had the goods on Jordan and actually DID something about it. To their best player in his prime!

If MLB and the MLBPA has anything to do with it, they will just make Barry retire before the let the facts about his steroid use ever get out. It has nothing to do with being a "good guy", neither league will let their stars get crushed in the public eye if they can help it.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Sosa is still pounding out 40-50 homer seasons and letting cork fly out of bats, but he has been given basically a free pass. When Barry does something, it's totally different.

I believe perception is a part of it as well.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Go ahead and strike their records down. Same with Caminiti, Canseco, and anyone else that took them. I haven't heard anything about Sheffield but I think everyone knows Giambi was on them.

I know you gotta defend your favorite player but sheesh, this is getting to "Kodos defending EA" proportions.

Again, with the "everyone knows he was on them" talk. That's called a conclusion, not a suspicion.

And for the record, I don't really like or dislike Bonds. As a baseball fan, I'm in awe of his production and hope that none of what has been alleged is true. At the same time, it seems to me that he could have been involved with that lab and been receiving supplements that were legal at the time, just as easily as he could have been receiving obviously illegal substances, and in either case, gotten a boost.

My only point is, prove he did something wrong before you accuse him (or anyone else, for that matter). I don't really give a crap that his head looks bigger in 2003 than it did in 1988. That doesn't prove anything. And his connection to the lab and/or trainer may or may not prove damning. At this point, it's certainly not damning enough for me to stop watching him hit HRs because I've concluded that he's on steroids.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

The difference is, I believe the NBA had the goods on Jordan and actually DID something about it. To their best player in his prime!

If MLB and the MLBPA has anything to do with it, they will just make Barry retire before the let the facts about his steroid use ever get out. It has nothing to do with being a "good guy", neither league will let their stars get crushed in the public eye if they can help it.

Uh...no facts were ever made public, to my knowledge, about Jordan (if it was even true). They let him "retire" and "unretire," rather than suspend him. You don't think that was cutting him a break? And how did it hurt Jordan? If anything, the two-sport thing made him even more famous. If they really wanted to punish him, they would suspended him and given the reasons. That would have hurt him in his pocket book - right there next to his Hanes.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Again, with the "everyone knows he was on them" talk. That's called a conclusion, not a suspicion.

And for the record, I don't really like or dislike Bonds. As a baseball fan, I'm in awe of his production and hope that none of what has been alleged is true. At the same time, it seems to me that he could have been involved with that lab and been receiving supplements that were legal at the time, just as easily as he could have been receiving obviously illegal substances, and in either case, gotten a boost.

My only point is, prove he did something wrong before you accuse him (or anyone else, for that matter). I don't really give a crap that his head looks bigger in 2003 than it did in 1988. That doesn't prove anything. And his connection to the lab and/or trainer may or may not prove damning. At this point, it's certainly not damning enough for me to stop watching him hit HRs because I've concluded that he's on steroids.

1st off, you're a Bonds homer defending him and no one else. He "could have been involved in the lab"? Ha, his buddy owns it. His buddy was also his trainer. He delivered stuff to Bonds. Was he dropping off Milky Way bars? His head has ballooned (a side effect of steroids). Just because you want to put blinders on, doesn't mean I or others can't add 2 + 2.

Yeah ok, I'll prove he did it before I accuse him (runs and gets the "Little Jimmy Home Steroid Testing Kit")

[rkmsuf]

Maybe he plays raquetball with the Balco guy

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Uh...no facts were ever made public, to my knowledge, about Jordan (if it was even true). They let him "retire" and "unretire," rather than suspend him. You don't think that was cutting him a break? And how did it hurt Jordan? If anything, the two-sport thing made him even more famous. If they really wanted to punish him, they would suspended him and given the reasons. That would have hurt him in his pocket book - right there next to his Hanes.

I never said it was made public.

If the NBA had gone public with the gambling stuff (if that really happened) it would have KILLED the NBA. The NBA was only looking out for itself while trying to do the right thing at the same time.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

My only point is, prove he did something wrong before you accuse him (or anyone else, for that matter). I don't really give a crap that his head looks bigger in 2003 than it did in 1988. That doesn't prove anything. And his connection to the lab and/or trainer may or may not prove damning. At this point, it's certainly not damning enough for me to stop watching him hit HRs because I've concluded that he's on steroids.

Just curious, would anything other that an admission of "I took steroids" prove it for you. The head thing, by itself, is not conclusive proof, but the connection to Balco is pretty damning, especially considering that the guy indicted worked with Barry personally. He also gained quite a bit of muscle pretty quickly. Taken together, for most people they move most people's assessment of the did barry take steroids question to "most likely." Is there enough circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Probably not. Is there enough to convict him in the court of public opinion? That seems to be the prevailing opinion.

[Butter]

Asking the average fan to "prove" Bonds was taking steroids is about as asinine as saying that he definitively is/was taking them. It's all conjecture. Bonds could make it all go away with 4 words: "I didn't do it." The fact that he won't further proves my theory: he's a dick.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

my theory: he's a dick.

Now, this I thought had been proven.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Now, this I thought had been proven.

don't call him a dick unless you can produce physical proof of dickness.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Sosa is still pounding out 40-50 homer seasons and letting cork fly out of bats, but he has been given basically a free pass. When Barry does something, it's totally different.

But Sosa is nice to the media, and Bonds is a jerk and makes their jobs difficult. So it's completely different, you see.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Asking the average fan to "prove" Bonds was taking steroids is about as asinine as saying that he definitively is/was taking them. It's all conjecture. Bonds could make it all go away with 4 words: "I didn't do it." The fact that he won't further proves my theory: he's a dick.

I'm not necessarily asking "fans" to prove he was taking steroids - I'm simply suggesting that fans should wait to conclude he's guilty until someone offers proof. However, to the extent people's "suspicions" are couched in terms such as "it's obvious he's taken steroids" - a conclusion, not a suspicion - then yes, I think they should prove why they have come to that conclusion, since they obviously know something the rest of us does not.

I'm suspicious of Bonds and the others, too, but I haven't seen any real proof that he took any illegal substances. There are a number of legal (at the time) substance he could have taken - and gotten from his buddy at BALCO - which would not warrant the accusations and conclusions people are making about him. If it was legal under state and federal law and under baseball's drug policy, then I don't see what the problem is.

And really, my beef has nothing to do with Bonds - as I said, I'm not sticking up for him because he's my favorite player or anything. It really has more to do with sticking up for baseball in general, and the idea that the major league baseball has somehow been compromised by this situation, when nothing has been proven. Will something ultimately come out of all of this? Maybe, probably. But right now, all I see is a bunch of conclusions thrown around with nothing but anecdotal support. And that, above all, is what irritates me.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not necessarily asking "fans" to prove he was taking steroids - I'm simply suggesting that fans should wait to conclude he's guilty until someone offers proof. However, to the extent people's "suspicions" are couched in terms such as "it's obvious he's taken steroids" - a conclusion, not a suspicion - then yes, I think they should prove why they have come to that conclusion, since they obviously know something the rest of us does not.

I'm suspicious of Bonds and the others, too, but I haven't seen any real proof that he took any illegal substances. There are a number of legal (at the time) substance he could have taken - and gotten from his buddy at BALCO - which would not warrant the accusations and conclusions people are making about him. If it was legal under state and federal law and under baseball's drug policy, then I don't see what the problem is.

And really, my beef has nothing to do with Bonds - as I said, I'm not sticking up for him because he's my favorite player or anything. It really has more to do with sticking up for baseball in general, and the idea that the major league baseball has somehow been compromised by this situation, when nothing has been proven. Will something ultimately come out of all of this? Maybe, probably. But right now, all I see is a bunch of conclusions thrown around with nothing but anecdotal support. And that, above all, is what irritates me.

All of this is because there is a simple solution that for some reason baseball and players do not want to entertain. That in and of itself influences a negative opinion.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Just curious, would anything other that an admission of "I took steroids" prove it for you. The head thing, by itself, is not conclusive proof, but the connection to Balco is pretty damning, especially considering that the guy indicted worked with Barry personally. He also gained quite a bit of muscle pretty quickly. Taken together, for most people they move most people's assessment of the did barry take steroids question to "most likely." Is there enough circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Probably not. Is there enough to convict him in the court of public opinion? That seems to be the prevailing opinion.

Again, "most likely" is a far cry from "it's obvious he's on steroids." People are not weighing the evidence and taking a wait-and-see approach as to whether he is guilty - they are stating it as fact. People can conclude whatever they want to conclude, but they should be prepared to back up those conclusions. I see the suspicious indicators, as well, and while I might be persuaded that, more than likely, there's fire where there's smoke, I haven't seen anything that comes close to proof.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Again, "most likely" is a far cry from "it's obvious he's on steroids." People are not weighing the evidence and taking a wait-and-see approach as to whether he is guilty - they are stating it as fact. People can conclude whatever they want to conclude, but they should be prepared to back up those conclusions. I see the suspicious indicators, as well, and while I might be persuaded that, more than likely, there's fire where there's smoke, I haven't seen anything that comes close to proof.

Here's the thing - in this court of public opinion in which Barry is being tried, every person gets to have his own threshold of what constitutes proof that Barry has taken steroids. You seem to be insisting that everyone conform to yours - nobody is allowed to say Bonds is on steroids until a level of proof - which you define - is reached.

For many of us, the increased size, and the fact that it came while he was under the guidance of someone who invented and distributed steroids IS enough proof.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Chubby

And YOUR proof is what?

Neither side of the argument has proof at this point. Simply saying "well he hasn't been caught yet" doesn't make your argument gospel.

Cute- but the burden of proof is on the witching hunting accusers.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Cute- but the burden of proof is on the witching hunting accusers.

I'm not witch hunting anybody.

I'm simply saying that I think he's on 'roids and that I will personally value his stats accordingly.


KSyrup - You say to back up your conclusions. So back YOURS up, where's the drug tests coming back negative? Oh wait, you don't have to back your conclusions up just others that disagree

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm with Peter Gammons. His HR totals, while amazing, don't interest me as much now as does the possibility that he could hit .400. I'd like to see someone argue that steroids helped him hit .400. The fact that he's going the other way with hits against the shift, is a beautiful thing. He's walking into second base on grounders to 3rd.

I suppose if anyone can do it these days, he can. Tho, if I had to put money on someone doing it, I think it would be on Ichiro or maybe Todd Helton. But it's just so damn tough.

It's my favorite "race" every few years when it comes along (Gwynn and Larry Walker were the last two I remember with decent shot late in the season; stupid 1994 strike wiping out Tony's shot). It's so tough and so grueling. The difference between .300 and .400 looks so miniscule statistically but it would be such an amazing feat if someone could pull it off.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Here's the thing - in this court of public opinion in which Barry is being tried, every person gets to have his own threshold of what constitutes proof that Barry has taken steroids. You seem to be insisting that everyone conform to yours - nobody is allowed to say Bonds is on steroids until a level of proof - which you define - is reached.

For many of us, the increased size, and the fact that it came while he was under the guidance of someone who invented and distributed steroids IS enough proof.

I'm asking that there BE a level of proof. If that's your threshold of proof, then I just saw ants straining to limbo under it.

I mean, I guess I could decide that the fact Kobe was in Colorado during the month in which he was accused of raping a woman constitutes proof "to me" that he's guilty, but that doesn't get us any closer to having an objective discussion as to whether the guy is really guilty or not.

I know an opinion's an opinion - that's fine and dandy, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about objective criteria as to why anyone should conclude he's guilty today. And you've got to give me SOMETHING other than Jerkoff + Muscular + Shady Company = obvious steroid user.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I'm not witch hunting anybody.

I'm simply saying that I think he's on 'roids and that I will personally value his stats accordingly.


KSyrup - You say to back up your conclusions. So back YOURS up, where's the drug tests coming back negative? Oh wait, you don't have to back your conclusions up just others that disagree

I haven't made any conclusions. I've never said he didn't use steroids. I'm in the "wait-and-see" category. I'm simply asking that those who have made up their minds, show me what objective proof you have.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And you've got to give me SOMETHING other than Jerkoff + Muscular + Shady Company = obvious steroid user.

Change that to...

increased muscle mass at 40 YO + 2 biggest HR totals after 35 + hat size increases 2 fold + personal trainer just got busted by feds for making and distributing steroids = steroid user

[Ben E Lou]

Why are steroids illegal?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And you've got to give me SOMETHING other than Jerkoff + Muscular + Shady Company = obvious steroid user.

How about Jerkoff + Suddenly Extremely Muscular + Federally Indicted Shady Company = Possible (even likely) steroid user.

What proof short of a positive steroid test would you consider as definitive proof? There are boatloads of damning circumstantial evidence out there, which = more than just occasionally cavorting with shady company.

How many criminals have gone to jail with less proof than what we have for Bonds?

It's very simple. Those who are more likely to hate Bonds will be more likely to believe the accusations are true. Those who are more likely to like Bonds will be less likely to believe the accusations are true. And then there's Chubby and Aadik, who are both in their own little polarized worlds. (I'm kidding)

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Why are steroids illegal?

Why is marijuana illegal?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Why is marijuana illegal?

That didn't answer my question, and I asked first.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Why are steroids illegal?

I believe the official reason is because they are damaging to the body like other illegal drugs (butter already gave a smartass reply so I figured I wouldn't )

[Chubby]

Dola, and it's not so much that they're "illegal" in this argument. But that they give a unfair competitive advantage to the user and the league has banned them.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

increased muscle mass at 40 YO + 2 biggest HR totals after 35 + hat size increases 2 fold + personal trainer just got busted by feds for making and distributing steroids = steroid user

The increased muscle mass and hat size has occurred over a period of years. It did not just happen when he turned 40 (which was last year, after he hit 73 HRs, btw).

In case you hadn't noticed, HRs kinda exploded all around the league after the strike ended. Guys who used to hit 5 HRs a year were hitting 15-20, etc. I suppose they were all on steroids as well, and that MLB couldn't possibly be involved in the scheme to increase the frequency of HRs to try to win back fans.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I believe the official reason is because they are damaging to the body like other illegal drugs (butter already gave a smartass reply so I figured I wouldn't )

That's what I thought.

Cigarettes? Legal.
Marijuana? Illegal.
Steroids? Illegal.
Alcohol? Legal.
Cocaine? Illegal.
Skoal/chaw? Legal.


I just don't get it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Dola, and it's not so much that they're "illegal" in this argument. But that they give a unfair competitive advantage to the user and the league has banned them.

Are they legal than? (I'm not sure....)

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Why are steroids illegal?

Someone considers them a public health threat. Steroids are potentially very damaging to users.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

That's what I thought.

Cigarettes? Legal.
Marijuana? Illegal.
Steroids? Illegal.
Alcohol? Legal.
Cocaine? Illegal.
Skoal/chaw? Legal.


I just don't get it.

Tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups, the others don't.

Unfortunately, that is basically what it boils down to. That's why I'm for legalization of pot (more tax $) but not for legalization of all drugs.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

How about Jerkoff + Suddenly Extremely Muscular + Federally Indicted Shady Company = Possible (even likely) steroid user.

Actually, you can stop there. That's about all I was looking for. Words like "possible" and "likely" at least show that you're not jumping to a conclusion. That's been my point from post 1. If you draw a conclusion, let's see the facts.

Given any set of circumstances, a particular outcome is possible or likely, and anyone can form an opinion one way or the other.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Someone considers them a public health threat. Steroids are potentially very damaging to users.

I understand that. All I'm saying is that the same argument could be used for alcohol, all tobacco products, Big Macs, etc. etc. etc.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

That's what I thought.

Cigarettes? Legal. (government taxed)
Marijuana? Illegal.
Steroids? Illegal.
Alcohol? Legal. (government taxed)
Cocaine? Illegal.
Skoal/chaw? Legal. (government taxed)


I just don't get it.

Make more sense?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm asking that there BE a level of proof. If that's your threshold of proof, then I just saw ants straining to limbo under it.

You are kidding right? There is very strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Bonds has used steroids to train. You want to ignore it because you have a hard on for him. People are convicted of crimes with circumstantial evidence all the time. Scott Peterson is about to be.

As far as what has been presented being MY acceptable level of proof, most sports fans believe that Bonds has used steroids. Perhaps you are the one who needs to reexamine his standards.

I am not suggesting his records be stripped, or that he be banned, or anything. That would require a far higher standard of proof. But, I have seen enough to believe that he did it, and view his records - in my mind - with the appropriate grain of salt.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups, the others don't.

I agree with you there. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. It just hacks me off.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Are they legal than? (I'm not sure....)

Some are and some aren't I think. At least that's what I get from the news that I read about em. The BALCO stuff is actually a steroid precursor, it's something that makes testerone be created in your body when taken. Up until now, all steroids were "testosterone" or a synthetic equivelent.

The term "steroid" is getting broadened every day. Is that supplement someone got at GNC a steroid? What if it stimulates the production of testosterone?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Dola, and it's not so much that they're "illegal" in this argument. But that they give a unfair competitive advantage to the user and the league has banned them.

But you have to agree that there are certain substances that are or were legal that can have the same effect, right? Wasn't McGwire on andro, and at the time, he wasn't doing anything illegal. So it's possible that Bonds is taking, or was taking, substances that were legal at the time he took them. Which, to me, suggests that he should not be automatically branded a steroid user at this point.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But you have to agree that there are certain substances that are or were legal that can have the same effect, right? Wasn't McGwire on andro, and at the time, he wasn't doing anything illegal. So it's possible that Bonds is taking, or was taking, substances that were legal at the time he took them. Which, to me, suggests that he should not be automatically branded a steroid user at this point.

I agree.

Like I said to SkyDog, it's not that they are illegal that is the problem. It's that he took something that gave him an unfair competetive advantage, something that was against MLB rules (as far as I know, I hate reading rules excerpts from any league), and it may or may not be illegal (since it's a new substance who knows what it was going to be classified as).

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. It just hacks me off.

I'm glad it was rhetorical. I thought you were a complete doofus there for a minute.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But you have to agree that there are certain substances that are or were legal that can have the same effect, right? Wasn't McGwire on andro, and at the time, he wasn't doing anything illegal. So it's possible that Bonds is taking, or was taking, substances that were legal at the time he took them. Which, to me, suggests that he should not be automatically branded a steroid user at this point.

I am wondering why this has not gotten more play. I think most of us can separate the "illegal" from "performance enhancing" arguments. Mark McGuire admitted to using andro when breaking the single season home run record. That substance has since come to be viewed as a steroid "precursor" due to its having similar effects as steroids.

I know he did not break either any rules, nor any laws (which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion) by doing this, but does anyone besides me now view his accomplishments with a certain amount of skepticism because he attainted them with the aid of a performance enhancing drug?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree with you there. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. It just hacks me off.

That steroids are illegal, or that tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You are kidding right? There is very strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Bonds has used steroids to train. You want to ignore it because you have a hard on for him. People are convicted of crimes with circumstantial evidence all the time. Scott Peterson is about to be.

As far as what has been presented being MY acceptable level of proof, most sports fans believe that Bonds has used steroids. Perhaps you are the one who needs to reexamine his standards.

I am not suggesting his records be stripped, or that he be banned, or anything. That would require a far higher standard of proof. But, I have seen enough to believe that he did it, and view his records - in my mind - with the appropriate grain of salt.

The funy thing is, I really am not a "fan" of his, other than just being a baseball fan. I just find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people would jump to such conclusions with nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

I don't see it as being particularly strong evidence. And we haven't even gotten into whether his trainer could have been giving him stuff he was told was legal, but turned out not to be (i.e., that Bonds/Giambi/Sheffield weren't told the whole truth about what he was being given). You know, their trainers had something to gain, in terms of additional clients and referrals, by them becoming ripped and putting up such great numbers. I've seen cases where, in a financial context, people's accounts were inflated to suggest a huge rate of return, when in fact that money never existed, but those rates of return were used by the broker to secure additional clients (essentially, a Ponzi scheme). It happens.

And really, if you think about it, how would you or I know if the substance we were taking was truly legal or not? There are plenty of substances that are legal that can increase muscle mass. Getting to a broader point, and away from Bonds, I just don't see the entire steroids issue so cut-and-dried. And maybe that's fueling my skepticism about whether these guys are truly guilty - first, whether they took the stuff, and then, whether they were told the truth about what they were taking.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I am wondering why this has not gotten more play. I think most of us can separate the "illegal" from "performance enhancing" arguments. Mark McGuire admitted to using andro when breaking the single season home run record. That substance has since come to be viewed as a steroid "precursor" due to its having similar effects as steroids.

I know he did not break either any rules, nor any laws (which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion) by doing this, but does anyone besides me now view his accomplishments with a certain amount of skepticism because he attainted them with the aid of a performance enhancing drug?

I do. Same with Sosa, but because they are good guys the media ignores it.

This is differemt than the league or the fans ignoring it, KSyrup (before you take it where I know you will). I think fans for the most part view this whole era with skepticism.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

That steroids are illegal, or that tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups?

Well, both, actually...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I am wondering why this has not gotten more play. I think most of us can separate the "illegal" from "performance enhancing" arguments. Mark McGuire admitted to using andro when breaking the single season home run record. That substance has since come to be viewed as a steroid "precursor" due to its having similar effects as steroids.

I know he did not break either any rules, nor any laws (which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion) by doing this, but does anyone besides me now view his accomplishments with a certain amount of skepticism because he attainted them with the aid of a performance enhancing drug?

I don't, not at all. Should we reconsider the HoF status of guys who threw the spitball, because afterward, it was determined to be an illegal pitch? You play by the rules as you go, and if something is not illegal or otherwise against the rules, I don't see why you should prevent yourself from taking advantage of it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't see it as being particularly strong evidence. And we haven't even gotten into whether his trainer could have been giving him stuff he was told was legal, but turned out not to be (i.e., that Bonds/Giambi/Sheffield weren't told the whole truth about what he was being given).

I am very willing to believe that this Anderson dude is shady enough to have done exactly that - told his clients he was giving them Zinc while he was really giving him his designer steroid.

But, it really does not matter to me in the context of viewing Bonds' accomplishments. I am not out to judge him as a person (I think he's an asshole, but since he's not my neighbor or coworker, I really don't care), I am simply trying to know whether his accomplishments can be accurately compared with baseball's history. If he was getting a boost from an artificial testosterone enhancing substance, those accomplishments are tainted, whether or not the taker knew he was getting an artificial testosterone boost.

Note, as I say above, the last sentence applies to both McGuire and Bonds.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, both, actually...

You really think anyone should be able to get steroids whenever they want?