The Barry Bonds Trial

[ellgieff]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

Your everyday nobody reads labels on drug boxes and foods. I doubt these high prized athletes who know their bodies are their salary, blindly take things without asking.

Actually, your everyday nobody tends to either not read the labels, or not really understand what they're saying.

I neither know, nor care, about Bond's knowledge of the substances he was taking. I just don't like this particular style of argument - particularly when it's based on a fallacy.

Common Sense has never existed.

[tvman]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

While I feel are government has better things to be doing than this trial, I do hope they throw this cheating ******* in prison. While I have lost respect for guys that cheated this great game atleast alot of them admitted it when they got caught. I use to be a huge fan of Roger Clemens but have lost all respect for that man. I sure hope none of these cheaters ever see the HOF.

What about the players out there now? You don't think cheating is still going on? Don't fool yourself there are still many undetectable peds out there and you can be sure they are been taken.

[wwharton]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

Pro athletes hire personal trainers to look after them. While i'm sure they have a pretty good idea what they're taking if the trainer says here is an excellent supplement that will help why should the athlete question someone they supposedly must trust?

Exactly. It's like having a personal accountant or financial planner. There are plenty of cases where you bypass what you should know to instead pay someone to know things for you. AND this would be a recommended practice in the MLB when we've seen players fail tests for things bc they weren't a problem in other countries. People give these guys way too much credit, especially at the time this was going on which brings me to the next point...

Okay, but now the question becomes, why would a trainer give their client steroids without their knowledge? That makes no sense, either.

I just don't buy it. If a trainer makes a recommendation, I'd think that a player would still research it on some level. After all, it's not the trainer who will necessarily have to serve a lengthy suspension and have their reputation destroyed.

If a player blindly takes a supplement without knowing the consequences, then they deserve whatever comes at them. That kind of recklessness just can't be explained away by "I didn't know."

We aren't talking about a guy that tested positive for something last week. Back when this is said to have happened, NOBODY cared about players taking steroids. It was normal. I'm not saying that I believe Bonds had no idea, but it is most definitely a plausible argument considering the timeframe we're talking about.

Another thing... With the delicate state that the game is in, and the drug testing, and the fact that getting popped for steroids is heavily tarnishing careers, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that any player would blindly take something on a consistent basis without knowing exactly what it is.

There's just no way.

People trying to sell that story should honestly just stop. It's ridiculous.

Another post looking at the game TODAY to explain what may have happened years ago. This is why the public shouldn't be crucifying these players in the first place imo.

[ImTellinTim]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

But again. Most of the players who were caught have come clean. The only ones really being crucified at this point are Clemens and Bonds who continue to think that we're all stupid.

All the others, we've moved on from. If the people who vote for the HOF want to keep those linked players out, well, that's another discussion.

[12]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

But again. Most of the players who were caught have come clean. The only ones really being crucified at this point are Clemens and Bonds who continue to think that we're all stupid.

All the others, we've moved on from. If the people who vote for the HOF want to keep those linked players out, well, that's another discussion.

Exactly right. When was the last time you heard someone talk negatively about Andy Pettitte?

[wwharton]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

But again. Most of the players who were caught have come clean. The only ones really being crucified at this point are Clemens and Bonds who continue to think that we're all stupid.

All the others, we've moved on from. If the people who vote for the HOF want to keep those linked players out, well, that's another discussion.

But that is the discussion in relation to how you present it. If we were to keep things in perspective then it'd be something like this:

1. lying to congress: all information about any player on trial or set to be on trial

2. taking steroids, official ruling: no further punishment as it happened long before the MLB actually gave a damn.

3. taking steroids, public ruling: crucified, banned from even visiting the HOF, etc.

I think these 3 get jumbled in the same discussion too much, making it confusing to really dissect some points (and see how ridiculous some of this is, imo). What Bonds lied about means absolutely nothing in terms of this court case, and that's how it should be treated. But the players that "came clean" are/were most definitely crucified in the same way as Bonds and Clemens. Whether they've been somewhat forgiven or not for coming clean, fans still don't think any of them belong in the HOF and any significant record wouldn't be acknowledged by the masses.

Meanwhile, MLB did nothing and will do nothing because they can't punish people for something that happened in the past... when they didn't give a damn.

[wwharton]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

Exactly right. When was the last time you heard someone talk negatively about Andy Pettitte?

When's the last time you heard Andy Pettitte mentioned as a HOFer? That conversation starts and you'll hear the negative talk. Same with Giambi, Palmeiro, etc.

None of these guys broke any rules according to MLB so no league punishment, and they aren't significant enough to challenge any "sacred spots in history" for the public to keep talking about them. What else are people going to say?

[12]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

We aren't talking about a guy that tested positive for something last week. Back when this is said to have happened, NOBODY cared about players taking steroids. It was normal. I'm not saying that I believe Bonds had no idea, but it is most definitely a plausible argument considering the timeframe we're talking about.



Another post looking at the game TODAY to explain what may have happened years ago. This is why the public shouldn't be crucifying these players in the first place imo.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on it being plausible. You think it is; I don't. We should just leave it at that because no one will convince either one of us otherwise. I don't believe that a player could not know what he was putting into his body in an era where steroids were so prevalent. You would have seen the changes, felt the changes. Bonds saying he didn't know what he was putting into his body puts the blame on his trainers, which in turn accuses them of giving him something against his will. His excuse completely takes ALL the blame off of him and puts it on everyone else around him who trained him. Like I said, I'll never buy that.

I don't think anyone is crucifying these guys. Come clean, that's all that needs to be done. Guys like Andy Pettitte came clean and the public quickly forgave them. I don't hear many people talking badly about A-Rod, either. Guys who own up to it and admit to it are pretty much left alone.

Taking steroids was normal in the baseball culture then, but the bottom line is that it was still illegal. I think a lot of people cared. Back then, I never even thought about it. I just bought the idea of players being bigger, stronger and faster.

In a perfect world, my hope would be that the players who did steroids just come clean and admit to it. That doesn't mean records need to be wiped or anything like that -- but players should admit to the fact that they were part of the steroid culture that was so prevalent. The constant lying and denying accountability is getting old.

[12]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

When's the last time you heard Andy Pettitte mentioned as a HOFer? That conversation starts and you'll hear the negative talk. Same with Giambi, Palmeiro, etc.

None of these guys broke any rules according to MLB so no league punishment, and they aren't significant enough to challenge any "sacred spots in history" for the public to keep talking about them. What else are people going to say?

See, this is another problem with that argument. They didn't break any MLB rules. Fine. But what about the laws of this country? Steroids are illegal. They have been since 1990. The rules of Major League Baseball do not supersede the laws of our nation.

Committing murder is not in the MLB rules either, but I think it goes without saying.

Furthermore, Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle wrote:

""Commissioner Fay Vincent sent the clubs a memo in 1991 reminding them that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance. He specifically mentions steroids in the memo and encouraged the clubs to take a get-tough policy on players thought to be using steroids.

What could a team have done if it suspected a player of using steroids? Probably nothing.

Vincent simply wanted to be on the record as letting the clubs know that steroid use was against the rules and that they shouldn't be afraid to confront a player.

There was no testing for steroids until 2003 (after being part of the 2002 labor agreement)."

That's the problem I have with that argument. For some reason unknown to me, people use the excuse that steroid use was allowed in the MLB up until the early 2000's so it's not a big deal... No, it wasn't allowed, as it was against the laws of our nation. That means, at least to me, that it's not allowed in baseball, either.

[12]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

When's the last time you heard Andy Pettitte mentioned as a HOFer? That conversation starts and you'll hear the negative talk. Same with Giambi, Palmeiro, etc.

None of these guys broke any rules according to MLB so no league punishment, and they aren't significant enough to challenge any "sacred spots in history" for the public to keep talking about them. What else are people going to say?

Not from me. If guys are forthcoming, I think they should be voted into the HOF if they're deserving.

[wwharton]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

We're going to have to agree to disagree on it being plausible. You think it is; I don't. We should just leave it at that because no one will convince either one of us otherwise. I don't believe that a player could not know what he was putting into his body in an era where steroids were so prevalent. You would have seen the changes, felt the changes. Bonds saying he didn't know what he was putting into his body puts the blame on his trainers, which in turn accuses them of giving him something against his will. His excuse completely takes ALL the blame off of him and puts it on everyone else around him who trained him. Like I said, I'll never buy that.

I don't think anyone is crucifying these guys. Come clean, that's all that needs to be done. Guys like Andy Pettitte came clean and the public quickly forgave them. I don't hear many people talking badly about A-Rod, either. Guys who own up to it and admit to it are pretty much left alone.

Taking steroids was normal in the baseball culture then, but the bottom line is that it was still illegal. I think a lot of people cared. Back then, I never even thought about it. I just bought the idea of players being bigger, stronger and faster.

In a perfect world, my hope would be that the players who did steroids just come clean and admit to it. That doesn't mean records need to be wiped or anything like that -- but players should admit to the fact that they were part of the steroid culture that was so prevalent. The constant lying and denying accountability is getting old.

I'm cool with agreeing to disagree and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but the reason I wanted to separate the "issues" is bc I feel like that's how these discussions get mucked up. For example, I believe you and I agree on the steroid era... 100% actually. When I say "nobody cared" what I'm really saying is that MLB really supported the steroid area bc of the results, players didn't worry about them being illegal bc it was clear there was no punishment, and the majority of fans had no idea or were grouped as just conspiracy theorists on par with the "juiced ball" folk.

In that sense, yes they are being crucified by the public, media and purists. You say "nobody's talking about" player "x" but that's bc there's nothing for them to say. Nobody's talking about Clemens right now either... but they will be soon. When guys "come clean" what else is there for anyone to say? All they can say is "they better not get in the HOF" which will be said once ARod's chance at Cooperstown comes up (and any other player you want to mention, be it Pettitte, Palmeiro, etc.). If this prevents any of these people from getting in the HOF then they are being crucified for it. If they weren't good enough to get in anyway, that doesn't change the perception, it just makes them less relevant. Like you, I'm fine with a juicer that comes clean... my point with that was that Bonds and Clemens have issues bc they already lied to congress. Coming clean doesn't do the same for them as it did for others. It's a separate issue to the steroid talk. They could get locked up for lying... doesn't matter what they actually lied about.

We can disagree on whether or not Bonds knew he was taking roids or not but I'll tell you, personally I try to check myself before assuming what someone else knows or was thinking when I know so little about them personally. I think Bonds knew, but I don't think it's crazy to believe he didn't. Today players take stuff to "look" and "feel" different like you said he should've recognized. Today there are things that are legal that are probably as "dangerous" as steroids if used improperly. The line of what is allowed and what was allowed is a lot smaller than I think some think. Players take stuff that works. Being "allowed" by the MLB or "legal" in the country are things considered, of course, but for those reasons... not for reasons of health so much. So if the "allowed" area is gray and the "legal" area is ignored by the league, then why is it hard to believe that a player wouldn't be as diligent as you'd expect them to be in TODAY'S world?

See, this is another problem with that argument. They didn't break any MLB rules. Fine. But what about the laws of this country? Steroids are illegal. They have been since 1990. The rules of Major League Baseball do not supersede the laws of our nation.

Committing murder is not in the MLB rules either, but I think it goes without saying.

Furthermore, Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle wrote:

""Commissioner Fay Vincent sent the clubs a memo in 1991 reminding them that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance. He specifically mentions steroids in the memo and encouraged the clubs to take a get-tough policy on players thought to be using steroids.

What could a team have done if it suspected a player of using steroids? Probably nothing.

Vincent simply wanted to be on the record as letting the clubs know that steroid use was against the rules and that they shouldn't be afraid to confront a player.

There was no testing for steroids until 2003 (after being part of the 2002 labor agreement)."

That's the problem I have with that argument. For some reason unknown to me, people use the excuse that steroid use was allowed in the MLB up until the early 2000's so it's not a big deal... No, it wasn't allowed, as it was against the laws of our nation. That means, at least to me, that it's not allowed in baseball, either.

I kind of grouped my response to this in the last post. To summarize A)the MLB wouldn't turn a blind eye to murder... they did to steroids. Even with that memo, we all know the MLB didn't care about steroids until congress got involved, and that was really to protect the health of kids playing at lower levels more than anything, not records. B) What it means to you and me (it means the same thing to me as you, btw) doesn't matter. Here's a better example than "murder"... if Clinton admitted to "inhaling", he wouldn't have been punished by the law for illegal acts years ago. When he was in college, such illegal acts weren't exactly accepted but everyone knew that there'd be very little to no punishment for doing them.

Not from me. If guys are forthcoming, I think they should be voted into the HOF if they're deserving.

Again, I agree with you on this. I do believe we are in the minority though.

[ImTellinTim]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

Again, I agree with you on this. I do believe we are in the minority though.

I'm in this boat as well. Steroids aren't magic dust that make you able to hit or throw a baseball well.

[travis72]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

What about the players out there now? You don't think cheating is still going on? Don't fool yourself there are still many undetectable peds out there and you can be sure they are been taken.

In any of my post did i say baseball is clean now? I'm sure there are still several guys cheating the game. Hopefully one day soon baseball will have a test that can detect any of these PED's.

[EnigmaNemesis]

I'm in this boat as well. Steroids aren't magic dust that make you able to hit or throw a baseball well.

No, but they make someone hit over 70 HRs and greatly improve bat speed, which is a huge key in hitting HRs.

It is far more prevalent than they try to downplay it as. Or they all would not have taken it for longevity and boost in numbers.

Personally I do not care that they took them. Players have been taking stuff even in the old days. And if this was available back then, players would have taken it as well. They were no saints like they try and paint the picture. They always had the "fraternity of silence".

I find it ironic how guys in the hall admitted to doctoring the baseball for movement, etc. And everything is gravy.

[Sportsforever]

Re: The Barry Bonds Trial

No, but they make someone hit over 70 HRs and greatly improve bat speed, which is a huge key in hitting HRs.

It is far more prevalent than they try to downplay it as. Or they all would not have taken it for longevity and boost in numbers.

Personally I do not care that they took them. Players have been taking stuff even in the old days. And if this was available back then, players would have taken it as well. They were no saints like they try and paint the picture. They always had the "fraternity of silence".

I find it ironic how guys in the hall admitted to doctoring the baseball for movement, etc. And everything is gravy.

I want to touch on one point you made here and elaborate. I don't believe (and it has been shown) that steroids necessarily caused players to hit the ball further.

What I do believe steroids and HGH did was allow players to remain fresher throughout the season so they maintained their homerun rates until the end. Throughout baseball history many a player has started fast and faded in August because the bat gets slow, the legs get heavy, you need days off, etc. This is where they PED's really benefited players. They could continue to lift/workout all year AND feel fresh/ready to play. Most players report losing quite a bit of weight from the beginning of the year to the end, but players on PED's maintained or gained weight.