756*

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>discuss

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DMcD</b><p>No joy in Mudville.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>BcD</b><p>3-2 count and the guy who caught it had 12 body guards take him out of the bleachers!<br /><br />boy these Apple powerbooks rock!<br /><br /><br><br>BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CN</b><p> There is a lot to be discussed but all I will remember about Bonds is his striking out against John Franco in game 2 against the Mets to end the game in the 2000 playoffs. I think history will play itself out and show how much of a loser Bonds is. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Turner Engle</b><p>Absolutley amazing! <br /><br />The guy who caught the 756 ball was literally being pushed out by the officers so he could get escorted.<br /><br />This record will stand for a long, long time.<br /><br />Turner Engle

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Bonds didn't say much, but if you weren't touch at the end when thanked his dad, you have no heart.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve</b><p>* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Hank Aaron took the high road and showed a lot of class...unlike Selig. Glad it's over.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>"This record will stand for a long, long time."<br /><br />This record will stand for far fewer years than Aarons record. ARod, assuming he doesnt decide to retire early or get injured (big ifs, I admit), will most likely break the record w/in ten years. Aaron held the record for 33 years.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Did you honestly believe Selig had any class? He's a used car salesman, ferchrissake <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />As much as everyone wants to make Bonds the villain, the true villain in this story is Bud Selig and he is the one that should catching all the heat. He created the situation that exists today.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>756* is appropriate....sure wish he hit it last night I had nice seats dang it and was all ready to ebay my ticket stubs...j/k

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Josh, good to see you have a realistic expectation of A-Rod's production. I want to pimp slap these idiots that keep saying he is only 5 years behind Bonds. I'm guessing these guys failed math because that means he has to average 51 HRs/year and keep pace with Bonds production until he retires. A-Rod has averaged only (lol) 46 HRs/year for his career, so it's highly unlikely he'll have 51 later in his career.<br /><br />I also wouldn't count A-Rod out of the roids derby. Olympic athletes having been cheating and beating drug testing for 30 years on a far smaller budget than A-Rod has. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he is using the latest and greatest in undectable drugs.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, todays athletes are all juices until proven otherwise. But I don't really care either because if everyone is juiced, they are playing on a level playing field.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>As far as I'm concerned, todays athletes are all juices until proven otherwise. But I don't really care either because if everyone is juiced, they are playing on a level playing field.<br /><br />This is an interesting quote. I think there is some hypocrisy as it relates to altering baseball cards but I am going to let it sit for awhile before commenting.<br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I now think Bonds will get in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot provided the legal problems peter out. Only because Hank Aaron passed the torch...if Aaron had stayed mum I think Bonds may have had some problems getting (And he still may), but I think Aaron made the road a bit easier for him.<br /><br />Jay, everyone knows that homerun hitters don't hit their peak until they turn 36. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Charlie, not sure how it relates to altered cards, so I guess I'll have to see what you see later.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>matt murphy caught the ball...<br /><br />22 yr. old mets fan from queens, gotta love that!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>I agree Jay that 5 years is unrealistic. Now, if he has a couple of 60 or 70 homer years like Bonds, who knows. Of course, nothing like 70 HRs to raise questions about steriod use. Personally, I dont believe that all athletes or ARod for that matter are juiced - ARod has been a consistent HR hitter, no huge production spikes (ala Bonds late in his career), etc. Other than this being the steriod era, I think the "evidence" of ARod using steriods is non-existent (and yes, I realize that Canseco is now making some statements, but you have to question why it is he now raises those points but made no mention of them in his book - my guess: he sees an opportunity to make more money).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>Barry is the kindest, ideal role model to have ever played the game. I'm glad this record is unquestioned and that there is overwhelming joy for his accomplishment.<br><br>"Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." -- Erica Jong

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />You have stated many times that no matter how many people say its ok to alter cards that it doesn't make it acceptable.<br /><br />But, for your boy Barry, if everybody is doing it...it seems to be acceptable. <br /><br />If it is proven that Barry used any kind of steriods would you be for wiping out his records or some kind of asterix etc or anything in between.<br /><br />FYI, many old timers, Aarron, Frank Robinson etc have said wipe out the stats if he is proven guilty.<br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>A possible explanation for no spikes in A-Rod' performance is that he has been using since day one. Bonds most likely didn't start until later in his career.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>Bonds should enjoy it while it lasts because A-Rod will beat it for sure if he stays healthy. Hes 32 years old, so lets say he plays 10 more years. He need to average less than 30 HRs a year for 10 years to break it. Hes going to hit 50 this year and probably average 40-ish for the next couple anyways. I'd say he has a good shot to hit 800 HRs.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I was catching up on my message board soap operas, and missed the damn home run.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I'm thrilled anyway. <br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>First off, if I were a clean (drug free) and self-respecting Pitcher, I wouldn't give Bonds ANYTHING to hit. Furthermore, I might actually try and plunk him. I mean, it is my livelihood he is messing with. If he hits a Home Run, that goes against my ERA and I might possibly lose the game. When arbitration or Free Agency comes up, being the one who gave up the record Home Run IS NOT going to endear me to my employers or get me any more money. In fact, it is going to work against me because it will say that I am prone to giving up Home Runs and my ERA and Won-Loss record was affected.<br /><br />Bonds was a good ball player before using Steroids and was probably going to the Hall of Fame anyway. Why take drugs to enhance yourself?? If I were a Pitcher who was young or good enough to make the show but was hanging on for my baseball life, why would I pitch to Bonds?? Nothing good is going to come from it.<br /><br />Furthermore, since I am a purist, if I owned a ML Baseball team and Bonds was coming to town and on the verge of breaking the record, I would try my best to keep him from hitting the record breaker against my team. I wouldn't want it to be remembered that he hit it against my team and in my stadium. At the very least, I would ask my Pitchers to NOT give him anything to hit. Whether they would or not would be up to them.<br /><br />Taking things farther, I would try and keep people out of the Outfield seats. Why?? Because I wouldn't want to hire extra security to police the area and I wouldn't want to be held liable for what the fans might do to each other. In fact, I would try and allow NOBODY to attend the games, media included. Having the least amount of people see the record being broken and no video of it for future generations would be worth the lost revenue to me. <br /><br />If Bonds hadn't cheated, then he wouldn't be breaking the record to begin with. If he wasn't breaking the record to begin with, then there would be nothing to remember. Having very few people see the "accomplishment" would be as close to "nothing to remember" as I could get as an Owner.<br /><br />Hopefully, Barry Bonds will be found guilty of tax evasion and perjury, sentenced to jail, fined and put on baseball's restricted list, just like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose.<br /><br />As far as Bud Selig goes, I don't like him either. He has had numerous opportunities to do what was "in the best interests of baseball" but hasn't. This includes things other than the Barry Bonds fiasco.<br /><br />David<br /><br />Edited to add, Bobby Bonds wasn't a very nice human being either. A surly alcoholic with a racist chip on his shoulder.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>A-Rod has an ounce or two of class. Sorry I just don't care for Barry; his denial of the roids useage is pathetic. A-Rod has denied it as well but he does not show the classic signs, weight gains, etc of a roid user. I hope he can continue to ave.46 a year...he catches Barry in 7 years easy that way and we can put this sad era behind us.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />I understand that and agree. I just dont think there is anything to link him with steriods or that would support such an assumption at this point.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Charlie, you really do need to read everything I write. This will be the 3rd time in the past few days I've said this, so I'll say this again:<br /><br />I don't have a problem with any sort of card alteration as long as it is fully disclosed. The Just So Burkett is a perfect example. I have no problem with that card. <br /><br />What I have a problem with is people who do this without disclosure and people who claim that certain forms are acceptable and don't need to be disclosed even when most of the hobby doesn't think it's acceptable or at least wants to know about it so they can make and educated buying decision.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br /><br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />And Bonds is for full disclosure? Common Jay, you are following the playbook exactly, at least be consistent.<br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Charlie, give it a rest...Now you're trying to use the Barry Bonds situation against Jay in your argument???

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />Consistency would be nice from someone who admits to striving for brutal truth. <br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>David, it's wonderful to dream of a utopian world, but it will never exist, so you need to deal with reality. The reality is that most professional athletes in any sport are using PEDs. Hell, golfers are now being accused.<br /><br />If anyone thinks that PED use magically stopped when MLB instituted drug testing, you are living in a fantasy world. All you have to do is look at the Tour De France to see what impact testing has. NONE!!! They just look for new ways to beat the tests. And they more than like have a smaller budget than what A-Rod makes in a year.<br /><br />PEDs are here to stay and it will be the rare athlete that can make it clean because there is too much money at stake and the less talented will always look for an edge on the more talented which means the more talented also need to do what the less talented are doing to stay ahead of them.<br /><br />Would I like to see a world of athletics thriving under the Olympic dream? Yes. Do think it will ever happen? No<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />Now the excuse for cheating with PED's is money? I guess there is no money in trimming baseball cards.<br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Next you'll be telling me that since I'm against alterations that marinating and grilling my pork chop goes against the principles I stand for in card altering. You really are stretching.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />And you are not stretching in saying that erasing pencil is equivilant to trimming?<br /><br />Consistency, thats all I ask for.<br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />Bonds cheated and you want to blame it on the competition and all the money at stake? For the record I love Barry Bonds and I think alot more goes into hitting a baseball than steriods. But I will take the other-side again to make you think your arguments through.<br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>What if you trim the fat off your pork chops? <br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Charlie Barokas</b><p>Al,<br /><br />How about a piece of paper stuck to the Pork Chops? Do you have to eat them with the Paper or can you safely remove the paper without altering the swine?<br /><br />CB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Depends whether you remove the paper with water or oil and vinegar.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I can't believe nobody has blamed George Bush for the whole steroid era yet. Maybe tomorrow...<br /><br />If they didn't walk Bonds all the freaking time, he would have 900 by now. Babe Ruth didn't play against Blacks...Hank Aaron didn't face relief specialists...Bonds took steroids...it is what it is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>Well actually I was telling my dad earlier how its all Bush's fault that Bonds wasn't arrested earlier in the season to prevent this kind of thing from happening....I mean isn't he responsible to make sure folks are caught and brought to justice? Its not like Bonds' was hiding in a cave or anything.<br /><br />Ok all joking aside there was a positive comment on this thread about Bonds that rings very true and my sarcasm and dislike for Bonds shouldn't knock that he is a gifted athlete. Its true he earned many MVP honors, he played great through out many years and is deserving of true greatness....all that I agree with. After that I think he juiced it up to make sure he could hit the most HR's in a season and the most of all time. That is why I can't wait for AROD to unseat him on the later.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Just got back...It was awesome!<br />I figured I made a mistake by coming on here to discuss, thinking that for 24 hours, maybe we Giants fans could enjoy it without all the bulls*it. Guess not.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>S Gross</b><p>Somewhere Al Downing is smiling ............................ <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Silver King</b><p>The one thing that would have been great is if the Mets fan who caught the ball would have thrown the ball back on the field. hahahaha. He would have been a fool and it would have cost him a lot of money, but at least he would have made the Letterman show and showed some true respect for the game. <br /><br />I just think it's too bad that Bonds went the steroids route when he didn't have to. I live in Sacramento CA which is only 90 miles from the ballpark and I've been watching the Giants since the clear fence at Candlestick. Frankly, Bonds makes me sick. I pretty much stopped going to the games because of him and the fans that cheer him on. The best game to catch is a day game because he's usually sitting on the bench. <br /><br />I am a purist and refused to watch the game tonight and found out by Yahoo's main page that he broke the record. In my book he cheated and got at least a 10% boost from steroids so my tally has him at 680 home runs. He has a long way to go. Hopefully A-Rod is clean and will break the record. Albert Pujols is my pick to break A-Rods record.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>To all;<br /><br />I look at Barry Bonds like a race car and myself like a regular passenger car. A race car is MUCH different than a passenger car. Both are automobiles but both are made for different purposes.<br /><br />I can never do the things athletically that Barry Bonds has done. Am I jealous, YES!!! But that is life.<br /><br />Now, comparing one type of race car to a similiar type is a better thing to do. Barry Bonds was better than the average Major League player but he took steroids to improve himself. He is doing things now that he was doing 10 years ago and for an athlete, especially one his age, that is not normal. Just as a 10 year-old race car performing better now than when new is not normal.<br /><br />Bonds SHOULD have slowed down and his performance SHOULD have dropped off by now but it hasn't and THAT doesn't make you people wonder why? I mean if a 10 year-old NASCAR was entered into a race next weekend wouldn't that make you say, "huh"? Now, if that race car performed as well or better than the new cars wouldn't that make you question things even more?? Wouldn't you as a race fan want an inquiry and wouldn't you be upset about possible cheating?? If you would, then why is the Barry Bonds situation any different??<br /><br />To Paul Stratton. If Bonds didn't take steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, he wouldn't have hit as many Home Runs. If he hadn't hit as many Home Runs, the Pitchers would have pitched to him more instead of Walking him. If they pitched to him more, there is more chance that he would have made more Outs. Because of that, his Home Runs, Runs, RBI's, Batting Average, Slugging Percentage, On Base Percentage, OPS and Total Bases would have been less and his team wouldn't have won as many games. Combine all of that together and he wouldn't have won as many MVP's and he wouldn't have been paid as much.<br /><br />Also, just think if you were a clean player who finished second in MVP voting behind Bonds. Wouldn't YOU be upset?? You work your tail off and possibly have the best season you will ever have and get beat out of an award by a cheater. Not only might that affect that player's wallet (he could have a clause in his contract for winning an MVP Award) but if that player was a border line Hall Of Fame candidate, he might not make it in.<br /><br />Or what about the 2002 baseball season?? The Giants went to the World Series and lost to the Angels. The problem there, though, is the Giants were the Wild Card team and finished just 3 1/2 games ahead of the Dodgers. Bonds was the MVP of the NL that season. What if Bonds hadn't juiced?? He probably wouldn't hve put up the stats that he did and the Dodgers would have probably gone to the Play-Offs instead of the Giants.<br /><br />If I were a ML Baseball player and were clean, I would be ticked off at those who cheated, especially the ones who had the talent to succeed to begin with. I would be even more upset if I were clean and lost out on an Award to a cheater or if my team lost out on going to the Play-Offs.<br /><br />Bonds cheating not only hurt himself physically but it hurt other players, teams, cities and history. If you don't think so, then can you name the players who finished SECOND in MVP voting or the teams that finished right behind the one that was the Wild Card team?? <br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Like it or not, Bonds holds the record for the most home runs in Major League Baseball...Ever.<br /><br />If his "cheating" were as clear as all of the/you critics say it is, do you really think he would still be playing? And if you all think that MLB is just letting it go- take a look at Selig's statement tonight. He would want nothing more than to ban Bonds- but he can't because there's no evidence. And if you think that MLB just lets cheating happen, consider Pete Rose and Joe Jackson, both banned.<br /><br />P.S. Who here has seen Bonds "cheat," i.e. who has seen him use a substance SPECIFICALLY banned by MLB? Didn't think so...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>That was Al Downing's claim to fame, so not sure he's smiling.<br><br>"Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." -- Erica Jong

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>cobby...sorry you take it so hard that many can't ignore his weight gain, size difference, and the fact he eagerly did business with a "group" that specialized in making performance enhancing drugs that could not be detected at the time. <br /><br />Was he caught - no - you are righ - he was not caught. That is simply because the MLBPA refused to allow testing for so long and when they finally got forced too he managed to change his ways. Sorry but in my book he deserves an * next to his name forever. In my book he's a cheater just like McGuire, Sosa, and many others of this era. Sad....hopefully now that he's got his record and soon will be retired we can move on.<br /><br />Besides as a Giants fan (I'm not) you guys might get the next HR King soon anyway....A-ROD for SF.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>Hank Aaron will always be the TRUE home run king

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Cobby,<br /><br />Do you remember the quote about pornography?? The one that goes "I might not know the definition of pornography but I know it when I see it"?? That is Barry Bonds, steroid abuse and cheating. I might not be able to tell you how he cheated but I sure know it when I see. Like it or not, the circumstantial evidence points to Bonds cheating. Whether he ultimately gets away with it is another thing.<br /><br />I would LOVE for an endocrinologist to explain to me how a person's feet grow from a size 10 to a size 13 1/2 after the age of 27. What disease or anything else could cause that?? Same thing about his head growing like it has.<br /><br />There is also this old adage, "It ain't cheating if you get away with it".<br /><br />Bonds (and other players) have gotten away with cheating because their Union has supported and protected them. Once "normal" Performance Enhancing Drugs were outlawed and testing started, then designer steroids took their place. Also, HGH and some of these other substances still don't have an accurate test to catch the cheaters.<br /><br />If Bud Selig had any testicles, he would have suspended suspected cheats a long time ago and sent this whole mess to the court system. Players and the Union could lie and stall Selig but they couldn't the Criminal Justice system. <br /><br />Bonds has ONLY testified to the Grand Jury (was that under oath?) but has NOT testified in any court room and has not been cross examined. He also did not testify in the Congressional Hearings. Raphael Palmiero did and look what happened to him. Mark McGwire was there but did not really testify and look at him and his Hall Of Fame votes.<br /><br />Bonds' Attorneys sued the Authors of "Game of Shadows" but NOT because of the steroid allegations therein but for some other reasons. Same goes for his Mistress. She was sued because of the things she said but then the suit was dropped. I can't wait for her interview in the October issue of PlayBoy Magazine and to see what Bonds and his Attorney's do after that.<br /><br />In the real world, Cobby, if I wrote a book and in it I said YOU were a pedophile (or some other nasty thing which wasn't true) would YOU sue ME?? I think you would, unless of course, what I wrote was TRUE!!!<br /><br />I don't think Bonds is any different. He makes a LOT of money and has the resources to sue. Allegations of cheating hurt his marketability (even more than his surly attitude do) and THAT hurts his pocketbook. Bonds cares about two main things, himself and money. He was ticked that McGwire and Sosa were getting all of the attention in 1997 and that they were going to get big contracts. So, he resorted to cheating.<br /><br />In the future, I think we will find out that both McGwire and Sosa were also abusing PEDs and then we will have a cheater cheating because he wanted to outdue two other cheaters. This is a slippery slope once it got started and the Baseball Comissioners could have stopped it once it was found out that McGwire was using Andro. But they didn't. But if they had, then we probably wouldn't be talking about Bonds breaking the record right now.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>David, <br /><br />If Hank Aaron can accept it, why can't you? It was HIS record that Bonds broke, not yours. I agree with you that Bonds more than likely took something, exactly what I have no idea. If he played for your favorite team(Cubs?Whitesox?), would you feel the same way? I'm guessing you wouldn't. We can all go on and on with the "If this.." or "If that..." stuff.<br /><br />If McGuire and Sosa didn't roid up, would we be talking about baseball at all?<br />If Luis Gonzalez wasn't yoked up on something, would he have been able to muscle that ball over Jeter's head?<br />If Clemens wasn't juiced, would he still be pitching? <br /><br />...and on and on...it's too late to go back and try to change the past. Unfortunately, we are probably stuck with those numbers. All baseball can do is try to clean it up and move on, I know I have.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>You people crack me up. You act as if Bonds took steroids in a vacuum. He didn't. He is supposedly just one of many that took PEDs, so it's not like had much of an advantage over others outside his raw talent.<br /><br />For those of you that prosteletize about how much steroids improves a players stat, Please...PLEASE!!!...site one source that backs up your assertation with scientific fact. The experts on steroids have no idea what impact steroids have on performance outside that fact they allow a person to recover faster so they can train harder. So please stop acting as if you know how steroids impact performance when the experts don't even know.<br /><br />Did Bonds cheat? Probably. Have all others MLBers cheated? most likely. So what's the big deal? Everyone is trying to get an edge. At that level, players are hypercompetative and with the money involved, most people will do anything to get that money.<br /><br />As I've said before, Selig is the real villain here and you should be laying the blame where it properly belongs.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rick McQuillan</b><p>Jay, I agree with your original post. The true villan in all of this (maybe villan is too harsh-incompetent fool is more accurate) is Bud Selig. He looked the other way for the past 15 or so years, he would not stand up to the union and do the right thing in regard to drug testing and penalties. Barry Bonds is simply of product of Bud Selig's and the baseball owners greed.<br /><br />Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I was too young to see him as a player, but even from my early baseball fandom, I knew there was something wise and special about the guy. One last hurrah for the Negro Leagues!<br /><br />--Chad<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Dang. I just just missed it. I've been trying to stay up and watch, but last night decided I couldn't keep limping by on so little sleep. So I only watched until about the 4th. <br /><br />Oh well - I'm thrilled that he broke the record!<br /><br />As to the guy that got the ball - wow. So a few thousand people sit out in the sun drinking beer for 2 or 3 hours, and then someone throws a million dollar baseball into this crowd and says whoever gets it can keep it. At what point is someone in MLB going to realize that maybe this isn't such a hot idea? Someone's going to get seriously hurt. It looks to me like it took way too long for any police or security to get over there and unpile the pile to protect the people on the bottom. The guy in the red #22 jersey - that climbed on the pile when he clearly had no chance whatsoever to get the ball - should be in jail this morning.<br /><br />And Cobby - you were there??? How great for you - what a thrill!<br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve yawitz</b><p>I'm guessing if one were to flip through the pages of Sports Illustrated or ESPN the Magazine, one would find print ads for substances designed to make our kids more attentive, elevate our flagging moods, sustain our erections, etc. To me, there's just too much disconnect between our righteous indignation at athletes' use of steroids and similar substances and our own unbridled enthusiasm for performance-enhancing drugs.<br /><br />I am not at all a fan of Barry Bonds, but I recognize his greatness and begrudge him none of his success.<br><br><a href="http://imageevent.com/yawie99" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/yawie99</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Like him or hate him, Bonds admitted to using performance enhancing drugs and all circumstantial and much direct evidence proves that he has used steroids. I don't know about the rest of you, but my hat size hasn't increased dramatically from my 20s to 40s. Bonds is a great player, no doubt, but a cheater, period. Sad that he felt the need to cheat in order to become as popular as McGwire and Sosa -- because he now got exactly what he wished for: he's as popular as both. ARod will take the record most likely and Bonds will be the face of cheating in baseball for the "Steroid Era" for all eternity. Unfortunately for him, he was just one of many cheaters, but because of his homerun records he will be the face of cheating no matter how much and how strongly he lies about his steroid use.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>This is certainly not the happiest moment in baseball history, and it's unfortunate that a record of this magnitude can't be fully enjoyed, but it's in the record book and it counts.<br /><br />I was a big Barry Bonds fan during his monster seasons and was of course disappointed at Barry for cheating, and at myself for not realizing that guys in their late thirties don't hit 73 home runs or have .862 slugging percentages.<br /><br />But he is the new record holder and I accept that fact, and only wish it could have been a more shining accomplishment.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>I personally do not care for Barry Bonds, but do respect his talent.<br />Bonds will get into the Hall of Fame, but by doing so, you must allow <br />the Mcgwire's, & Sosa's in as well. You cant keep those guys out due<br />to allegations when those same allegations fall on Bonds himself.<br /><p>Tony

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>McGwire is as eligible as anyone else but he only got 22% of the vote. You can't force the sportswriters to vote for him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p><i>shhhh</i> Myself, and many other Bostonians have just become discreet Yankees fans. <br /><br />resize pic

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Hi Barry -<br />I agree, but those same sports writers that kept Mcgwire out<br />for the steroid allegations will put Bonds in, when the allegations<br />apply almost identically to him to.<br />I'm just saying you can't say this guys in, but that guy's not<br />when they both are clearly guilty for the same thing.<br /><p><br />Steve - That pose is classic. It hangs in my office at home to.<br />Almost makes you feel like your there, huh?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Yes Tony, but Bonds's stats sail past McGwire's, so much so that it will be tough to deny him (although Rose's stats were likewise in a class of their own).<br /><br />McGwire hit 583 homeruns, and Bonds is likely to surpass that by 200 (if he does in fact play one more year). And all his other numbers will be in the stratosphere. It makes it tougher to just say no.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>David - Im no Bonds apologist, in fact, I dont really care for the guy at all. Nevertheless, Ive got to say that your argument that Bonds' cheating is the root of all evil is so unsound its really quite funny.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>someone just sent this to me...it's all in fun, so don't crusify me for posting it (i didn't make it)...<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1186583377.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve</b><p>Couldn't believe it - nearly the first thing out of my wife's mouth this morning was a bashing Barry Bonds spout - Ha Ha !<br /><br />By the way, I am working on a new creme to administer to creased, scuffed & pinholed cards to make them new again. <br /><br />Steve.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Barry -<br />My argument wasn't comparing Mcgwire's numbers to Bonds. <br />There's no doubt Bonds was a better all around player by far.<br />My argument is Mcgwire's stats are HOF worthy, and he shouldn't<br />be passed upon solely on steroid allegations if those same allegations <br />apply to Bonds as well. <br />If the writers hang that over Mcgwire's head and keep him out, how<br />can they say, well Bonds is guilty to, but he did hit 200+ more<br />HR's, and he is the HR king, so we have to put him in. <br />This entire era is tainted due to enhancing drugs, so the same standards<br />should be applied to all players accused equally. Numbers aside.<br /><br />ps - If I knew how to apply a smiley face at the end of my post, i'd do it.<br />Never have figured out how to do that. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>: ) without the space in the middle. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>And a semi-colon followed by a ) will give a blinking eye as in <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />We don't really know how the voters will react in Bonds's first year of eligibility. McGwire's stats are HOF worthy, but it is still possible that Bonds will get in and McGwire won't. We'll have to wait and see.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p><img src="http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/brooksie05/1964oh.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I used to hit, 50, 60 homeruns a game in Atari 2600 baseball. The trick was hitting it directly over secondbase and not getting bored with own greatness.<br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />Holy crap, that was easy. Thanks guys.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Let's be very very clear about this:<br />1) Bonds is a cheater. However naturally skilled he actually is, no one will ever know. <br />2) Blaming Selig is just plain dumb (unless we later find out that he was overtly and deliberately encouraging steroid use). <br />3) There is absolutely no reason to believe that Hank Aaron actually, truly honors this record being broken in this fashion by this man.<br />4) Celebrating and honoring someone who didn't play by the rules is a hollow and worthless activity.<br />5) If HOF balloting in the coming years is conducted with only an eye towards their stats, what a truly embarrassing cast of characters we will have traipsing through Cooperstown:<br />Barry Bonds<br />Mark McGwire<br />Sammy Sosa<br />Rafael Palmeiro<br />Roger Clemens<br />How much you wanna bet none of these guys set up at autograph tables in the coming years?<br /><br />disgusting.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>well....<br /><br />I wasn't sure how I would feel about it before it happened.<br /><br />I 'believe' it is likely bonds took steroids. So, going into this - I was thinking I did not like or appreciate this record chase.<br /><br /><br />But... <br /><br />After seeing it.<br /><br />I can't help but be excited about it and I did feel the magic of the moment.<br /><br />I am surprised about that myself.... but it was special.<br /><br /><br />(btw... I never much liked the SF Giants.... but as you know I very much like the NY Giants. It was nice to see that Giants uniform take the record.)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jason, I agree with what you said with one exception: I don't think you can lump Clemens in with that lot at this stage. The actions of the others as well as the evidence compiled against them is much more significant than against Clemens as of today.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Anyone remember how much more exciting Aaron's 715th was? Totally feel-good moment as a kid...a memory I'll never forget. I had zero interest in watching Bonds's moment along with his lie at the press conference after in which he claimed that the record is not tainted at all. Perhaps Greg Anderson's refusal to testify before the Grand Jury about Bonds' steroid use suggests otherwise. Funny that Anderson has spent more time in jail avoiding the questioning than he probably would have received had he lied before the GJ and claimed that he never provided Bonds with steroids.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>you're right, there is far less incriminating evidence of him using any drugs. And I truly hope that he did not, because I kinda think he's cool. <br /><br />But that bat-throwing incident - if that wasn't roid rage, then<br />1) I would be surprised, and <br />2) Let's get him into some serious anger mgmt classes, huh?! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Personally, I watched Glavine get number 300 but didn't tune in to watch Bonds get 756. Because of Johnson's bad back, there may never be another 300 game winner in MLB. I could care less about Bonds. Aaaron and Maris are the record holders to me...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Highly unlikely McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero will ever make HOF. Bonds would as it stands today but likely more damning info will come out that will in the end prohibit him from making HOF. Likely imo that Clemens cheated as well--and I think its probable that in the next 5 years more info will come out about him that will keep him out. I certainly hope so.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I agree with Bob re Glavine and the 300 win plateau and Jim's assertions about Clemens. I suspect he cheated...but there is not credible evidence out there. Yet. Hopefully he didn't cheat because to watch a guy win 350+ games it out of this world. Talk about a mark that will not be approached again in our lifetimes...right?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RC</b><p>We at Net 54 are extremely proud of your newly acquired technical abilities!!!<br /><br />RC

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Thanks RC. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Maddux is only 10 wins shy of 350 as we speak and using the "eyeball test", it doesn't look like he juiced. He might just pitch for a few more years and pass Spahn, which would be absolutely remarkable. If we devalue the offensive numbers, then we should elevate pitching numbers like these, he dominated during the roid era.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>I'm a big fan and admirer of Maddux, so don't get me wrong here, but when I hear the name Maddux, dominating isn't the word that comes to mind.<br /><br />I would say he "navigated" the roid era very adeptly. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I'm of the opinion that a pitcher can "dominate" with a devastating circle change and masterful location. I guess you wouldn't classify Mathewson as dominant then? You are probably in the majority when you say his "stuff" wasn't dominating, I guess I just disagree.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>Put an * by their names with an indication for PED at the bottom of the page...done

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p><img src="http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s290/triwak/128.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Anyone see the Osama bin Laden tape today?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />He is holding an *

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>The guy(I missed his name) from Steiner Sports just estimated the ball at $350k.<br /><br />...and Joann, you're right about that guy in the #22 jersey. He deserved a few upper cuts, I hope someone got him with one. Where's Tbob when you need him?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>David-<br /><br />Thank you for your comments.<br /><br />With all due respect, I think that drawing an analogy between an alleged "cheater" in baseball and a pedophile is tenuous, at best. Furthermore, in the context of a discussion about a home run record, I think it is insipid to ask me what I would do if someone accused me of being a pedophile. I don't like to think about those things and will not dignify that absurd hypothetical (and query about whether it was true) with a response. That just goes to show the general mentality of those who are the forerunners of the Bonds hate parade.<br /><br />But- to respond to some of yours and others' points, allow me:<br /><br />1. In my view, Bonds has not sued those hack journalists for several reasons: (1) he has no cause of action. To educate you all, a public figure must show MALICE in order to prove a cause of action for Defamation. They must also prove DAMAGES. Bonds has not been damaged by the hollow accusations. He's making over $16M this year and there is no proof that he would have made more, but for the statements. (2) Not everyone in this society is litigious. Believe it or not, although I deal with plenty every day in my occupation, some of us aren't out to sue anyone and everyone. (3) When it comes down to it, Bonds doesn't give a rat's a** about what people think about him, which is probably why people have so much disdain for him.<br /><br />The whole notion of Bonds suing or not suing these "authors" is nothing more than a ripoff of the loose comments of Curt Schilling, who has proven that he is not particularly skilled at thinking before opening his mouth.<br /><br />2. "Circumstantial evidence" means nothing. Very few people are convicted of anything based upon mere circumstantial evidence. If Bonds' "cheating" had any teeth to it, don't you think some tangible, competent evidence would have surfaced by now? (Remind me to move if any of those who are willing to convict Bonds on this weak "evidence," become the prosecutor in my jurisdiction).<br /><br />3. My primary point in my first post was to share my experience at AT&T. I won't allow any of the single-minded people who are obsessed with vilfying Bonds (out of jelousy or whatever reason), ruin that. Again, Bonds is the legitimate career home run leader and at this point, nothing any of his critics can say will change that, so get over it.<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc</b><p>Well you have to wonder what Babe Ruth would have accomplished today? I truly believe the man would have hit over 1000 homeruns easily. Ruth wasted his first 6 YEARS in the game pitching. Ruth played in ballparks MUCH BIGGER - 450' to dead center field and 400' in the alleys in most parks. Ruth didn't get to use a maple bat - which has been thought to add much more distance to the ball. Ruth didn't get to play with todays baseballs which go much further than baseballs of his era. Ruth didn't get the advantage of facing pitchers on a level pitching mound - thus allowing a better view of the pitch. Ruth didn't get the advantage of facing weaker pitchers/players because there were less teams in the game - more players/teams equals diluted competition. More teams means you have more players who normally weren't good enough for the majors now in the majors.<br />And Ruth didn't have the advantage of steroids, human growth hormone, todays nutrition.<br /><br />The only argument against Ruth is he didn't face blacks or latin americans which would cancel out the weaker competition argument I gave above. Other than that, Ruth was BY FAR the superior player to Bonds. Remember, Ruth was one of the best pitcher in MLB before he was traded to the Yankees. If not for left field, Bonds couldn't even play anywhere on the diamond successfully. And Bonds playing left field successfully is a stretch. He was terrible every where else on the field. He would have had to been a DH in the American League.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dean H</b><p>I am in no way a Bonds fan. Also, I am in no way a Bonds hater but I do find all the "hate" directed at him excessive. I read this article about the record and an astericks this morning and found it very intertesting as it does add different perpective. I hope my link works. If not maybe someone can help me out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19919795/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19919795/</a><br /><br /><br />Also, I like Ruth as much as the next guy, but I remember reading that before 1933 any ball that bounced over the fence was ruled an HR instead of a ground rule double. It would be interesting if it could be determined how many of Ruth's HR's bounced over the wall. I doubt everyone of his 715 were mammoth shots. Also, Yankee stadium was a killer on right handed batteres. I believe Yankee stadium had a short porch in right field. Again, i am in no way trying to bring down the Babe. He is arguably the best ever. Sorry for any poor spelling and grammer.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>dean- i thought the whole "ball bouncing over the fence" rule was changed much earlier than 1933, but i did some quick research on the interent and here is what i found...<br /><br />"Prior to the 1930 American League season, and prior to the 1931 National League season, fly balls that bounced over or through the outfield fence were home runs! All batted balls that cleared or went through the fence on the fly or that were hit more than 250 feet in the air and cleared or went through the fence after a bounce in fair territory were counted as home runs. After the rule change the batter was awarded second base and these were called "automatic doubles" (ground-rule doubles are ballpark-specific rules) and are covered by rule 6.09(d)-(h) in the MLB Rule Book. <br /> <br />***Babe Ruth reportedly had no "bounce" home runs; Lou Gehrig had a few, so did Rogers Hornsby and many, many other players of that era."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>Hearing Bond's comments on the radio, his voice, and the way he said that his record is "no way tainted" today just screams of foul play. I appreciate a fan like "cobby" above who enjoys it and has in his mind has a great hero to root for; but I will be the opposite. His record deserves an aesteric. It is not a criminal court; his proof does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt and since his statements (not that I know of), affiliations (with Balco), and obvious presentation (gaining weight significantly and size) all provide evidence of the countrary - he'll never be a pure HR Record Champ in my book.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ed Ivey</b><p>Would bringing back the dead ball eliminate juicing?<br /><br />I say the record belongs to Roger Connor. Even the Babe is an asterisk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>should Gaylord Perry have an asterisk by his name for throwing spit balls?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dean H</b><p>Thanks Mike about the date correction. I got the 1933 from reading about Jimmy Foxx and his HR totals for that year. It had mentioned that rule change so I assumed it meant that year. Thanks for the clarification. Still it's hard to believe that none of Ruth's HR's were bounces. But I will definatley not argue the fact as I have no way to dispute it. Just a gut thing. Again, I view Ruth as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time like many others. I just like to look all angles.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jimmy</b><p>MSN has a story about the ball and the highest paid sports items ever, they est. the ball at 500,000<br /><br />Jimmy

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dean H</b><p>Maybe an asterick should be put by Gaylor Perry. If we as baseball fans are going to shun Bonds for "cheating" then we should shun all players that have "cheated" in the past, present and future. I'm sure there have been plenty. I think Bonds gets more heat because he is not the friendliest of people.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Dean<br /><br />I was going to bring up Gaylord Perry's situation, and it is an interesting one. If Perry had admitted to an umpire in any particular game he was using a spitter, he would have been thrown out of the game and faced a suspension. His after induction confessionals have seemingly done little to tarnish his image, and have only invited semi-tepid debate as to his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.<br /><br />That said, on Bonds, and somewhat OT, I received an email link on the tax implications of Fan 756*'s catch. For anyone breathlessly interested in this fascinating issue, here's the url <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2kenoj" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/2kenoj</a><br /><br />Max<br /><br />IRS Circular 230 Disclosure<br /><br />To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Cobby, I disagree on the issue of circumstantial evidence: people are convicted every day with "just" circumstantial evidence. As for Bonds, there is a ton of evidence that he juiced, only some of it being circumstantial. There is direct evidence, eyewitness evidence, etc. etc. The reason Bonds has not been indicted yet is because he is not being investigated for steroid abuse -- he is being investigated for perjury which is a tough thing to prove in federal court. Bonds reminds me of Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart before their falls: loud protestations of innocence and good values did not make them any less soiled.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>To all,<br /><br />I am a baseball fan but also a fan of fair play. If a player on my favorite team was found to have used/abused PED's, I would just as vigorously denounce him.<br /><br />I played sports for many years and was taught to play hard, play the right way and always try to do your best. However, even doing that, sometimes another player or team is better than you, at least on that day and you are going to lose. I didn't like that but I accepted it as being part of the game. What changed my mind about losing, especially to cheaters, was a middle school football game.<br /><br />My team was playing an away game and the score was close in the Third Quarter. During a play, our Quarterback's chin strap came loose and the Ref gave him a 15 yard penalty because of safety reasons. No warning, just a straight penalty. A few plays later, a Defensive player from the other team grabbed our Quarterback's chin strap and tore it off his helmet. Again, the same Ref gave us a 15 yard penalty. Our Coach came out on the field to complain and HE was given a 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. We had to Punt and they went on to score and win the game by four points. From that point on, I HATED cheaters.<br /><br />There are a couple of other incidents of cheating I could talk about but they would take a long time to tell the whole story, so I wont.<br /><br />As far as PED's go, I can see where a fringe player might use them just to get to or stay in the Show. But Barry Bonds was not a fringe player. He had no NEED to use/abuse PED's. The only reason he did was because his self-centered ego was hurt.<br /><br />To me, Bonds breaking of the Home Run record should be treated like it never happened (because it shouldn't have) it should be a non-event.<br /><br />As far as circumstantial evidence, aren't people jailed every day because of it??<br /><br />If Bonds didn't do anything illegal or against the rules, then why is his Personal Trainer in jail and why does he refuse to testify?? Seems like if Bonds had nothing to hide then Greg Anderson would feel free to testify about anything the Government wanted to ask him.<br /><br />Why did the scientist who worked for BALCO and who created the "clear" say that Bonds was on "the program"??<br /><br />Why did Gary Sheffield, another accused cheater, go to live with Bonds for a while so he could work out with him, suddenly leave his house and call Bonds a control freak?? If Bonds is such a control freak, then why did he take someone's word that what he was ingesting or putting on his body was only Flaxseed oil, especially after he started to grow BIG real FAST??<br /><br />Bonds KNEW what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway. He didn't have to cheat to put up Hall Of Fame numbers but he did and so far, he is breaking records he shouldn't be, getting paid millions of dollars he shouldn't be and getting away with it. On top of that, fans (and ESPN) are falling all over themselves praising and cheering Bonds along.<br /><br />If fans are willing to cheer Barry Bonds then they shouldn't complain about trimmed or altered cards. Bonds cheated to break records and make more money and people who trim or otherwise alter cards are also doing so to improve them so as to make more money.<br /><br />Same peas, same pod.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>&lt;&lt;A-Rod has averaged only (lol) 46 HRs/year for his career, so it's highly unlikely he'll have 51 later in his career.&gt;&gt;<br /><br />The exact same thing could have been said of Barry when he was 30 years old. I would be highly unlikely for his production to increase later in his career, but that's exactly what happened.<br /><br /><br />When Barry was 30, he had hit 40+ homers only once in a season (1993 with 46 homers) and no more than 34 in any other season.<br /><br />After he was 30, he hit 40+ homers in seven seasons with a high of 73. <br /><br />Barry's most productive steak was ages 35-39. The only other members of the 500 home run club who's career HR/AB ratio doesn't level off after age 30 is Palmerio, Sosa and McGwire.<br /><br /><br />As for likelihood, Bill James' favorite toy can estimate the likelihood of achieving a future milestone. According to the favorite toy, Aaron had a 3% chance of hitting 755 at age 30 and Bonds had a 0% chance of hitting 755 at age 30. How could Bonds be at 0%? No one could have expected his most productive years would be at age 35-39 and that those years would be so dramatically better than anything he had previously done.<br /><br />The following post will detail ARod's current percetanges at hitting 800, 900 and 1,000 home runs.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Who'll pass Bonds? Chances are, it's A-Rod<br />By Rob Neyer<br />ESPN.com<br />OK. He's done it. So who's next? <br /><br /><br />When Hank Aaron retired in 1976 with 755 home runs, the No. 2 home-run hitter among active players was Willie McCovey, with 465 homers ... and McCovey was nearly 40 years old. So Aaron's record looked safe for quite some time, and it was; it would be another 26 years before another player (Barry Bonds, of course) would reach 600 home runs, let alone 755. <br /><br />Babe Ruth's record lasted roughly 40 years, and Aaron's roughly 30 years ... but what about Bonds' record? How long will it last? To even begin to answer that question, we have to answer two others: <br /><br />1. How many homers will Bonds hit before he quits? <br /><br />and <br /><br />2. Which current players have established a chance to surpass Bonds' theoretical record?<br /><br />CAREER ASSESSMENTS <br />How many home runs will A-Rod hit? What about Albert Pujols, or Ryan Howard, or Adam Dunn? What are the odds of ANY major league player catching Barry Bonds, once he's through hitting home runs? Try the Bill James' Career Assessments tool, formerly known as the Favorite Toy, and see for yourself. <br /><br />I've seen only one career projection for Bonds. The Bill James Handbook 2007 lists projected career totals for all players, and the projection for Bonds is 884 home runs. <br /><br />Yeah, that seems like a lot. My guess is that the method doesn't really know how to handle a 43-year-old superstar who doesn't seem to be slowing down much. I just have a hard time imagining that once Bonds breaks the record, he has another 130 homers left in him -- though, of course, he's surprised us before. And I'm sure he'd love to top Sadaharu Oh's Japanese mark of 868. <br /><br />Let's be a bit more conservative, though. Let's assume that Bonds plays for a couple of more seasons after this one, but has some problems staying healthy and finishes his career with 800 home runs on the nose. That's a truly round number, and perhaps Bonds will choose to finish with a flourish. <br /><br />So who among our current stars might hit 801 home runs? To answer that question, we turn to James' "Career Assessments" method. This used to be known as the "Favorite Toy," a name I prefer and will continue to use. Essentially, the method determines how many full years of established production a player has left (based on his age), measures that production (based on the previous three seasons), and arrives at the probability that the player will reach a particular number. It might be 4,000 hits (entering this season, Derek Jeter had a 6-percent chance) or 1,000 stolen bases (12-percent chance for Carl Crawford) or 801 home runs. <br /><br />I have made a slight adjustment in the formula, to account for the possibility that historical aging patterns no longer apply. Essentially, I merely added another half-season to the expected number of remaining seasons in the player's career. I've made this adjustment because Bill James, when he devised the method some years ago, had no reason to believe that a 43-year-old hitter would someday lead the majors in OPS, or that a 45-year-old power pitcher would someday earn roughly $1 million per start. Yet those things are happening, right now. It seems to me that the old rules do not apply. Or that, at the very least, we might make one small allowance to account for the distinct possibility. <br /><br />With all that in mind, the (adjusted) Favorite Toy identifies six active players with an established chance of hitting 801 home runs. <br /><br /><br />6. KEN GRIFFEY JR.: 2 percent <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Griffey<br /><br /><br />Age: 37 | Career HRs: 589 | 2007 HRs: 26 | Profile <br /><br />Surprising to see him here at all, considering all the injuries, right? But Griffey's done wonders for his projections this season, by staying healthy and regularly hitting the ball over the fence. Before this season, his established chance of hitting 700 homers was roughly 20 percent; today it's nearly 55 percent. Or rather, it will be nearly 55 percent if he stays healthy and productive for the rest of this season. <br /><br />Projected Total: 705 <br /><br />5. ANDRUW JONES: 6 percent <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Jones<br /><br /><br />Age: 30 | Career HRs: 363 | 2007 HRs: 21 | Profile <br /><br />Until 2005, Jones was not particularly known for his power. But he hit 26 homers before his 21st birthday, and afterward averaged roughly 35 per season until his breakthrough in '05. His stock is down this season, thanks to that .217 batting average. This probably is just a blip, though; next season he'll hit .260 with 40 homers, and he'll be back on track for the Hall of Fame. <br /><br />Projected Total: 614 <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />4. RYAN HOWARD: 7 percent <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Howard<br /><br /><br />Age: 27 | Career HRs: 114 | 2007 HRs: 32 | Profile <br /><br />Obviously, Howard's established himself as one of the top young power hitters in the game. The problem here is that he's not particularly young. He's 10 days younger than Adam Dunn, and two months older than Albert Pujols. Which isn't in itself a handicap. What's a handicap is Howard's late start, as he didn't break into the Phillies' lineup until he was 25, in the middle of 2005. This does have a negative impact on his established level -- because 2005 represents one-sixth of that level -- but even if we give him credit for the 16 homers he hit in the minors that season, his chance of hitting 801 homers moves up only three points, to 10 percent. He just got started too late to keep up with all the big-time power hitters who came up when they were 19 or 20, as so many have. <br /><br />Projected Total: 509 <br /><br /><br />3. ADAM DUNN: 10 percent <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Dunn<br /><br /><br />Age: 27 | Career HRs: 228 | 2007 HRs: 30 | Profile <br /><br />Dunn comes out as the No. 3 home-run hitter in the majors, among active players? According to this method, he does. Since Opening Day of 2004, Dunn has hit 156 home runs. Only David Ortiz (161) and Pujols (160) have hit more. So why doesn't Dunn's name come up in Hall of Fame discussions? Because he's a "Three True Outcomes" guy. With Dunn, everything's a homer or a strikeout or a walk, and only one of those (the first one) is appreciated by the cognoscenti. But even if we assume that 500 homers is not a magic number (it's not), and neither is 600 (jury's still out), what about 700? Dunn's established a 24-percent chance of hitting 700 home runs. The key for Dunn always will be his batting average. As long as he can hit .240, he'll have a job. But considering that his career average is just .247, we might reasonably guess there are just too many .220 seasons in Dunn's future. <br /><br />Projected Total: 578 <br /><br /><br />2. ALBERT PUJOLS: 13 percent <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Pujols<br /><br /><br />Age: 27 | Career HRs: 274 | 2007 HRs: 24 | Profile <br /><br />Because of his slow start this season, not to mention his non-appearance in the All-Star Game, it's easy to forget that Pujols is the best non-Bonds hitter in the National League. What's really hurting him here is that slow start. We've got him finishing this season with 35 homers, which would be the fewest of his brilliant career. Pujols simply has to re-establish himself as a consistent 40-homers-per-season hitter. Of course, given his history, he might do that in the next few months. <br /><br />Projected Total: 585 <br /><br />1. ALEX RODRIGUEZ: 46 percent <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Rodriguez<br /><br /><br />Age: 32 | Career HRs: 500 | 2007 HRs: 36 | Profile <br /><br />The difference between the No. 2 man and the No. 1 says a lot about the No. 1 man. If that doesn't blow you away, there's this: Rodriguez has established a 21-percent chance of hitting 900 home runs -- more than Oh, even -- and a 7-percent chance of hitting 1,000 home runs. <br /><br />Projected Total: 790 <br /><br />Granted, the (adjusted) Favorite Toy probably gets less reliable the further we get from the conceivable, and it's not easy to conceive a baseball player hitting 1,000 homers. But it's fun to think about, isn't it? <br /><br />Rob Neyer writes for ESPN Insider and regularly updates his blog for ESPN.com. You can reach him via rob.neyer@dig.com. His most recent book, "Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders," is available everywhere.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Joan I noticed that joker too and that was my first thought, the guy should be arrest. I was also wondering when MLB is going to raise security for events like this. I may have missed it, but I never saw a shot of McCovey Cove, so I'm wondering if they blocked that off and kept all the boats out. I had thought about that too, because of the ball had ended up in the ball, I felt there was a serious chance that someone could end drowning, or be held under water in order to get the ball from them. If I remember right, the guy that got the ball was bloodied a bit adn I am sure others were too. I'm not a fan of suing people, but if someone got seriously hurt in that scrum, I hope they MLB and the Giants for lack of security.<br /><br />Tony, Mac doesn't belong in the HOF to begin with. The guy is a one trick pony and there are already too many of them in the HOF. Mac was a horrific 1B, legged many a double into singles and if he didn't hit a HR, he pretty much didn't get a hit. Not my idea of a HOFer.<br /><br />Jason, let's be very clear about this, <br /><br />1) there is no proof that Bonds cheated. If you ahve proof that has cheated that no one else has, please give it to the federal prosecutors so they can proceed with their case against him.<br />2) Bud Selig IS to blame for all of this. When Mac was caught with Andro, he could have stepped in a done something, but didn't. He turned a blind eye to it all because it lined his pockets and those of the his owner buddies.<br />3) But Aaron did make the statement, so who are you to say that he feels otherwise? Are you close personal friends with Mr Aaron?<br />4)Guess we will just put an end to all athletic competition then because cheating goes on at every level in every sport. It would be nice to live in a sporting world of the Olympic Dream, but it's never gonna happen, not even in the Olympics.<br /><br />Jeff, Clemens has managed escape most allegation because he conveniently skipped spring training and the earliest part of the season, which just happens to be when most of the random drug testing happens. Plus, his dome has grown almost as much as Barry's. It cracks me up that people will find all sorts of excuses for Clemens, yet people don't find it suspicious that a guy at his age can skip huge chunks of the season and yet keep performing as well or better than most of the pitchers playing today.<br /><br />Marc your arguments for Ruth are cherry picked. Yes, there were carvenous parts of old ball parks, there were also parks like Sportsmans in St Louis that had ridculously short right field porches. Someone in SABR research how many HRs Ruth hit into that porch in his 60 HR season and how many Jimmy Foxx hit there in his 58 HR season. It was determined that Ruth would have lost 4 HRs if had to hit the ball over the fence that Foxx had to hit his HRs over. It was also determined that Foxx had at least 2 hits go off the fence. These would have been HRs under Ruth's conditions. Ruth didn't have to face pitching specialists and because there were only 8 teams and 4 man rotation, he basically got to see the same 28 pitchers over and over again. How many more HRs would Bonds have hit he only had to different pitchers all season? The supposed watered down pitch staff argument has been disproven many times. I can gaurentee you that the 4th and 5th starts of today are much better than 3rd and 4th starters of Ruth era and most likely better than 2nd starter on many of weaker teams. If Ruth played today and had access to all the drugs that are available, given his personality type, he would have most likely OD'd before his playing career was over. Your claim that Bonds has zero defensive skill to absolutely laughable. Did you ever seen him play early in his career? You want to look at Mark McGwire for the definition of no defensive skills what so ever. <br /><br /><br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jay, there exists a ton of evidence that Bonds cheated including his own words before the Grand Jury. Again, keep in mind that he is being investigated for perjury (which would require proof of a material lie, not just a lie) not for use of steroids. There exists testimony that he shot himself up with 'roids. That is evidence. There is documentary proof. There is the mountain of circumstantial proof (which is evidence). And again, Greg Anderson is in jail because he refused to testify as to what he knows about Bonds and his steroid use. If Greg knew nothing about Bonds and steroids would he have taken the contempt charge? Or would he have just testified about it? Just because Barry has not tested positive for roids does not mean he has not cheated. As for your take on Clemens, I agree. There does not exist the circumstantial proof against him that exists against Bonds but for some strong reason I just am certain he cheated (and for the same reason I believe that Nolan Ryan did not cheat even though they both threw in the mid 90s while over the age of 40).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Brian- that's an interesting study but those projections seem too high. Clearly some of those players will get injured and not come close. And A-Rod having a 7% chance of hitting 1000? That means he has to have 500 more left. That's 40 a year for 12 1/2 more years. I say 0%.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Jeff-<br /><br />I realize that many people are convicted and jailed in circumstantial evidence cases and typically, the Criminal Defense Bar puts their own "*" after those convictions (e.g. Scott Peterson). I would think that as an accomplished criminal defense attorney, you would be skeptical (and would probably love defending) a case premised on circumstantial evidence only.<br /><br />Here, we don't even have a case with circumstantial evidence brought forward, which suggests to me that any evidence against Bonds (non-perjury, which is linked to the threshold issue) is not even strong enough to prosecute (in any arena).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Jay Behrens,<br /><br />Why all the non-love for Big Mac? What's THAT all about? He wasn't that God-awful of a 1st baseman when he played for St. Louis. We Cardinal fans had just as much fun chearing for him as you SF guys do for Bonds.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I was a season ticket holder for the A's when he came up and got to watch him butcher the position. Then again, being a Twins fan and seeing Hrbek play first makes most otheres look pretty bad. I also am not a fan of HR hitters. HRs are the most boring and anticlimatic thing in baseball. I'll take a triple or inside the park HR any day. Then there is the fact there are already too many players that only hit HRs in the HOF. It doesn't need anymore when we should be honoring the defensive greats too, like Mazeroski.<br /><br />jay<br /><br />The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>Of course the guilt or innocence is important, but so is the opinion. People outside of the bay area (and some inside) have a dim view of Barry. He's earned that with his demeanor, special locker room, leaving a tie 1-1 game in the 7th (I don't mean just sitting down but leaving the dug out). Then of course the shady statements about not knowing what he was taking; I'm sorry but I think most of us expect a professional (hence term) athlete to know what they are taking. The growth, the difference between his actions in his 20's and then in his 30's, and the list just seems to never end. Thank GOD the man wasn't fighting dogs; his issues are with him and the record books and not with others. In this day and age, media, Internet, etc, the public does not need a criminal conviction to have a less then favorable view of an athlete.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Totally agree with you on HR's vs. triples and inside-the-parkers!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>BcD</b><p>take steroids and trim cards with their teeth!<br><br>BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>757 splash landing tonight!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>He's on fire.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>Is that what they are calling it now?<br /><br />j/k.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Hey Jay -<br />You stated -<br />"Mac doesn't belong in the HOF to begin with. The guy is a one trick pony and there are already too many of them in the HOF. Mac was a horrific 1B, legged many a double into singles and if he didn't hit a HR, he pretty much didn't get a hit. Not my idea of a HOFer".<br /><p><br />Just curious on who the other one trick pony players are you are speaking of when you say there are too many of them in the HOF already.<br /><p>Tony<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ErikV</b><p> Just got home from San Francisco! As would be expected, all the talk was about Barry. I did get a chance to catch a Giants game (When the trip was in the planning stages, it was a toss up between Monday or Tuesday's game. Damn, I was only one game away from witnessing history!) I settled for watching HR 756 from my tv in my hotel room. I, like most others in this forum are baseball purists and cringe at the thought of Barry Bonds now owning the most coveted record in all of sports. Being at the game one day before the record was set, I kinda feel like a pitcher who goes 8 2/3 innings just to lose a perfect game on an 0-2 pitch. I was that close to being there, just to fall a little bit short. The game and the rest of the trip was enjoyable.<br /><br /> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1186638094.JPG"> <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1186638064.JPG"> <br />Bonds first AB in Monday nites game.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p> Being at that game would be like going to the senior prom with your sister. A big celebration with an empty finish. Go Arod! (he's no longer Afraud)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>...proof that Bonds "cheated."<br /><br />Jay wrote<br /><br />"let's be very clear about this,<br /><br />1) there is no proof that Bonds cheated. If you ahve proof that has cheated that no one else has, please give it to the federal prosecutors so they can proceed with their case against him."<br /><br />Bonds <i>admitted</i> taking "the cream" and the "clear."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Randy Trierweiler</b><p>Mark McGwire commited 103 errors in 15 full seasons, an average of 6.8 errors per year, hardly a butcher at his positon. He actually won a gold glove as well. He was the 1987 ROY, a 12 time AS, 1999 Lou Gehrig award, Silver Slugger 3x, OB% leader 2x, Slugging% leader 4x, OPS leader 2x, HR leader 4x, and RBI leader 1x. His career stats are surely HOF worthy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>May have had a talented career but he's the ROID poster child now. If he gets in it should be just like Rose - after he's gone and burried. I think that is a good solution for all of the rule breakers - no all in your lifetime...after you are dead if the career was deserving then consider them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>David, that is the biggest fallacy out there. Get a hold of the transcript and read what it says word for word. The only thing he admitted to was using a cream and clear substance. The authors of the book and everyone else that hates Bonds twists that to mean what they want it to mean. If he really had admitted to using the illegal substances, he would not be in baseball right now.<br /><br />Tony, the others are Killebrew and Kiner. 2 pure HR hitters that couldn't do anything else is 2 too many in the HOF. Kiner especially, has no business being in the HOF. He has an even worse case for being a HOFer than McGwire, in my book.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>"If he really had admitted to using the illegal substances, he would not be in baseball right now."<br /><br />What are you talking about? There are many players who have failed steroid tests who are still in baseball. Giambi admitted using steroids. Still in baseball.<br /><br />And the only thing that would make a 35 year old man's feet grow a few sizes, and his head expand like a balloon is Human Growth Hormone. You have proof Bonds used HGH every time you look at him.<br /><br />Wake up.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Damn, I guess I'm on HGH too then because my feet have gone from a size 12 to 14. Not sure if my head has gotten bigger only because I hate hats, but I do know that the last time I put one on, I had to put the adjustable strap 2 notches to the right of where I used to put it in high school.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Jay we don't need any proof you have a swelled head. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>"Not sure if my head has gotten bigger only because I hate hats, but I do know that the last time I put one on, I had to put the adjustable strap 2 notches to the right of where I used to put it in high school."<br /><br />You were in high school when you were 35?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Just because Bonds has not admitted using steroids per se does not mean he has not used steroids. He has already admitted to using substances that are performance enhancing and has claimed he didn't know what he was putting on his body. Yeah, right. At least Giambi had the character to admit that he used steroids. The one thing it is nearly impossible to disagree on is that Bonds lacks character. As Marty Brennaman said this morning, 'we've had the Dead Ball Era and now the Steroid Era.' Long live ARod!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Jeff what makes you so sure A Rod is clean?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>OK, what about the scientist at BALCO who created the "clear" saying that the Owner (I forget his name right now) when asked about Bonds, saying that he (Bonds) was "on the program"?<br /><br />The scientist took that as meaning Bonds was using steroids and other PED's because every other person "on the program" was doing that. I don't think this guy has anything to gain from saying it, so why did he?? Plus, I would consider him credible since he worked at BALCO and INVENTED the "clear".<br /><br />Then there is Greg Anderson. Still in jail, refusing to testify. Why?? I think it is because of what he knows Bonds did. I also think there is a chance it is because of what Bonds is STILL doing.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I'm not arguing that Bonds did or didn't do it. Personally, I think he and about 80-90% of all athletes are using PEDs. The argument is that there is no proof that Bonds did anything. All we have is circumstantial evidence and hear say. Until there is a positive drug test or someone catches him with drugs in his possession, that all we have. No proof.<br /><br />It's sort of like OJ. We all know he didn't it, but can't prove it.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>David, it's a point of reference because I don't wear hats. If you'd bother to read medical journals or know something about biology, one the things on our body that keeps growing until we die is our feet.<br /><br />Also, how do you explain that Bonds' arms haven't gotten bigger since 1992? The guy that makes his elbow armor stated recently that he hasn't had to change anything in the design of the armor because his arm hasn't changed in size since he started making it for him in 1992?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>First off, a civil jury found OJ liable for the deaths of his wife and Ron Goldman.<br /><br />Second, if a jury ever got to hear the evidence of Bonds' steroid use he'd be convicted in about two seconds -- assuming that was the charge. The circumstantial evidence and direct evidence (yes, direct evidence) is overwhelming.<br /><br />As for ARod, I have no reason to think he's juiced: his size has not changed, he has not gotten stronger as he's gotten older in a bizarre fashion a la Bonds and his name has never been linked to steroids (other than in a vague manner by Canseco).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>I have no link to this but hasn't AROD repeatedly said - test me anytime when it comes to ROIDS? I thought he had been on the record a few times saying he hasn't done it and welcomes being tested whenever the league wants?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>They can test for steroids all they want. You are only going to catch the stupid. The smart are using HGH and whatever is the latest and greatest in undetectable PEDs.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I will be very interested to see the HOF vote on Bonds. McGwire got only 22%. Despite this, I think the career HR record puts Bonds in a different class than McGwire. But think of this. If Bonds sticks around for two more seasons, with very few more home runs, A-Rod could pass Bonds before Bonds is eligible for the HOF. If Bonds is no longer the record holder when his first HOF vote comes up, what happens? Is he just another McGwire?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Bonds surpassed McGwire as a superstar years ago. McGwire was a one-tool player. He hit HR's and that's about it. It's irrelevant whether he was on steroids or not, since he wouldn't have made the HOF anyway. Bonds has been one of the game's best (if not THE best) five-tool players in the history of the game- even before these now-annoying, accusations of steroids.<br /><br />I, for one, am getting tired of the BS. If a jury would really convict Bonds in two seconds, where's that jury? Where are the charges? It looks to me like there isn't a prosecutor out there who wants to lose their job over a malicious prosecution.<br /><br />Now go back to reading about UFO's and keep looking for Elvis hanging out in Argentina somewhere. Better yet, start a campaign to out all of the MLB and NFL players who have tested positive for steroids AFTER they were specifically banned. What's the obsession with Bonds? It's getting old.<br /><br />And as stated, I was at the game and the finish was awesome. Since I don't have a sister, I don't know what going to the prom with one would be like. Maybe if you were there, you would feel differently. Hard to really feel anything watching an event like that on TV.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Cobby,<br /><br />Tired of the BS, why?? Because you are scared it is true?? <br /><br />Blind loyalty is what gets people into trouble. Even when they see the truth, they don't want to believe it and usually what happens is they are too far down the path when they decide to do something, like change course and admit they were wrong or try to get out of the situation.<br /><br />The Grand Jury reconvenes in September and once Bonds is indicted for tax evasion and perjury, I expect YOU to be the first one on this board to admit you were wrong about him.<br /><br />I am on here and I have said he has cheated. If I am wrong, nothing is going to happen. Bonds is still going to be a free man. He is still going to be worth millions. He is still going to have the season and career Home Run records and he is going to go into the Hall Of Fame.<br /><br />However, look what YOU have to lose if you are wrong. The Giants organization will have a black eye. The team accomplishments during Bonds time with them will be tainted. Your HERO will have been torn down. He will be fined and will possibly go to jail, thus ending his baseball career. If he isn't put on Baseball's Restricted List like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose then his being voted into the HOF will be a LONG time coming.<br /><br />On the Gaylord Perry issue of cheating. He has admitted throwing the Spit Ball. Did this help him?? Yes, on occasion. But I seriously doubt he used it EVERY PITCH. Bonds using steroids and other PED's has helped him EVERY STEP ON THE BASEBALL FIELD!!! Bonds can't just turn it on and then turn it off. It is there with him constantly. This is in contrast to Perry who could decide when he wanted to use the Spitter. Do I condone what Perry did? NO!!! But at least what he did wasn't a constant.<br /><br />Oh yeah, I also find it funny that Gaylord Perry was a San Francisco Giant and that fine human being and role model named Bobby Bonds was also.<br /><br />On a side note, Dusty Baker should NOT have a job on Baseball Tonight where he can give his opinion on the steroids issue. He was the Manager for the poster boy so his opinion is a conflict of interest. Steve Phillips shouldn't be on the show either since the long time Clubhouse guy of the Mets was arrested for dealing in PED's. An employee during the time that Phillips was GM.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Just read a great article about why it's hypocritical for fans to be upset about players using PEDs to try and be a better player and helping the team win, yet not having problem with players like Ruth and others who used illegal drugs that hurt their performance and their team's chances of winning.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I don't think anyone is supporting Bonds blindly. I have no illusions that he and 90%+ of athletes use PEDs. What I and many others are tired of is the blind hatred that you and most Bonds haters have. The position and reasoning of most Bonds haters is hypocritical at best. Give your statement, I expect you to be the first to come here and apologize if Bonds isn't convicted of anything and declare your support for him. But I won't hold my breath.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i find it ironic (or moronic) that a lot of people here detest bonds but glorify joe jackson. if you played on a team at any level,would you rather find out your best player was using drugs to attempt to better himself/your team or throwing games so he could make some extra money?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dennis, I agree with that. I think the difference is that none of us were around when Jackson was caught cheating and all we know about him are movies and books that glorify him and his fall to some degree. As for Bonds, I think the 'obsession' about him is two-fold: a) unlike Palmiero and McGwire, he has the two greatest records in sports history; and b) he is a miserable human being. Had Palmiero hit 756 HRs the 'obsession' would be the same. True baseball fans don't want the two hallowed numbers -- 755 and 61 -- to be trifled with in a despicable manner and, in this case, they were.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Jay & Dennis- Couldn't agree more. Jeff- I appreciate your explanation as to the "obsession." I think most have not thought it through that far.<br /><br />David- "The Grand Jury reconvenes in September and once Bonds is indicted for tax evasion and perjury, I expect YOU to be the first one on this board to admit you were wrong about him." I'm not holding my breath. Until then, I'm not going to allow people's jealousy and hatred for Bonds ruin the experience.<br /><br />"You" all claim to love the game of baseball. Yet, I'm bewildered by the lack of respect for the home run record and due process in general. As of today, the record stands, without an "*" or any other qualification. Nobody on this Board, or in the media, has the right to qualify the record. It is what it is. If you don't respect Bonds, sobeit. If you think he's the only "cheater" in sports, you're entitled to your OPINION (as opposed to recitation of any facts). But I don't see where they/you get off on being the judge and jury when the real judge and jury and MLB have not acted and may never.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Cobby, one of the 'wonderful' things about baseball history is that the court system, while usually having the final say on guilt or innocence, is not as determinative as the court of public opinion in baseball. Sad to say, whatever happens to Bonds with the sitting grand jury will not impact how he is perceived historically, which will always be as a cheater. As for jealousy or hatred, keep in mind that tons of people wanted Aaron to fail in his chase due to race issues solely. I can't imagine any baseball fans are jealous of Bonds anymore than they'd be jealous of ARod for his big contract or even the financial status of a utility infielder. The race card can't be played with Bonds due to Aaron being African American; it's simply that the two records Bonds holds are so hallowed that the popular perception is that they should not be held by a cheater -- even if many others cheated too. It also doesn't help Bonds that ARod and Junior are not thought to have juiced. And Cobby, did you ever think that your defense of Bonds has a lot to due with your geographic location and support for the local team? Why do you think people outside of the San Fran area are almost universally against him? Can't be all jealousy. When Aaron hit 715 I was a Dodgers fan and Al Downing, a Dodger, threw the pitch. I was thrilled for Aaron when he hit it. Aaron and his courage brought people together; Bonds and his cheating and lack of character have also brought people together -- against him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I agree Bonds was a better overall player than McGwire (though I'm not sure I'd describe him as one of the best five tool players even before steroids). But to say McGwire wouldn't have made the HOF if it wasn't for the cloud hanging over him is just wrong. The guy hit 70 HRs in one season and over 580 lifetime. And he was probably the most popular player in baseball before all of the controversy hit. I think he was a very easy first ballot HOFer.<br /><br />Also, steroids or no steroids, I don't think a jury will ever convict Bonds of anything, except possibly lying to the grand jury. He is "charged" with violating baseball's rules. I don't know what crime he is accused of. I guess using prescription steroids could possibly be a crime if he didn't have a prescription from the team physician or some other doctor. But that's hardly the kind of thing a prosecutor spends much time on.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>...thinks Vick is guilty?<br />....thinks Vick would still be "damaged goods" if found innocent?<br /><br />Well I do care about dogs far more then what Barry does to his body, but the point of it is most people don't care if Vick gets convicted and likewise a lot of people don't care if Bonds is convicted. He still treats others in ways you wouldn't want to be treated, he still denies what appears obvious (to most of us), and even without a conviction he's a schmuk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Vick is a good case in point as to how little evidence there seems to be against Bonds. It didn't take the govt long to build a case against Vick. If proving Bonds was a slamdunk like so many seem to think, then why hasn't the govt moved forward with the speed they have against Vick?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jay, again I'll tell you that the case against Bonds is not a charge of using steroids, it is a case of perjury which is very difficult to prove in a federal courtroom. And one of the reasons Vick was indicted so quickly is due to the number of witnesses who cooperated with the government. In Bonds's case, Greg Anderson decided to defy an offer of immunity and break the law by refusing to answer questions under oath -- and go to jail instead. That sort of thing usually happens in the rarest of circumstances, such as an organized crime underling refusing to obey a Grand Jury subpoena or a journalist refusing to divulge a source. Incredibly, it has also happened with Bonds. Also, I think the feds have decided to wait until after the season to act because otherwise it would look as if they had some sort of improper motivation to indict prior to the breaking of Aaron's record. I expect Bonds to be indicted for at least tax evasion. How will Bonds explain the deposit of large amounts of cash into his girlfriend's bank account in order for her to buy a house? <br /><br />PS--Mark Sweeney was traded yesterday so Bonds can feel free to again blame him for his positive drug test last year. Go Barry!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />I also expect Barry to be indicted for tax evasion, however, it is unlikely they will pursue perjury. Barry has stated that he thought what he was taking was flaxseed oil, yes, I know that's far-fetched but without Greg Anderson's testimony how are they going to prove differently?<br /><br />Anderson is now in a no-win situation. He has told everybody that he will not squeal on his pal Barry. At this point it's better that he just serves out his time, instead of giving in. If he gave in, it would be difficult for him to retain legitimacy with his customers and continue his work in the future.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>It's typical of the government to not bring an indictment on charges they think they may lose at trial -- which is, of course, weak in my mind. God forbid they may only have a 90 percent chance of winning instead of 99%. Greg Anderson's testimony is hardly necessary to indict Bonds for perjury but, again, the govt is terrified to bring a case they may lose, thus holding out for more evidence. All I would want is for Bonds to be treated the same as any other individual who testified before a grand jury or possibly evaded taxes. It sounds as if they have Bonds dead to rights on the tax evasion issue which is easily proven. Why they haven't pulled the trigger makes no sense other than how they, the feds, want to be perceived as not interfering with his chase to 756. Weak, again in my mind, because it treats Bonds differently than John Q. Public. <br /><br />As for Anderson, he has no sentence -- he is imprisoned indefinitely for contempt. In order to be released from prison on contempt charges, the inmate needs to essentially prove that the continued detention of him will clearly not cause him to change his mind to testify. Usually that happens after 18 months in prison. He hasn't been in that long yet. Of course, if the grand jury's term ends, that would also end the need for Anderson -- but the feds keep renewing which suggests that they plan on indicting Bonds at some point. The statute of limitations on bringing a case against him still has years to go.<br /><br />Finally, the Greg Anderson issue really does point to the fact that Bonds is wildly guilty of, at the very least, using steroids. Why would a guy who knows nothing about Bonds' use of steroids refuse to answer grand jury questions and instead go to prison? If Bonds was clean as so many of his apologists would have you believe, than why won't Anderson answer the simple questions before him? It's clear to anyone who can view this issue honestly that Anderson is unable to answer these questions honestly in a way that could clear Bonds (sorry for the pun).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>My guess on the reason for the delay on indicting for tax evasion, is it's possible that Barry's attorney may be trying to make a deal with the IRS. After the fiasco with the reporters and the attorney that leaked Grand Jury testimony, I'm sure that Barry's attorney won't be discussing any potential settlement negotiations with the media.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, considering Rains' statements to the press about how he's 'kicked the government's ass in public and private' I'm pretty certain the feds will not be negotiating with him on any issue in the near future other than the timing of Bonds' surrender after his indictment.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>I'm also beginning to doubt that Barry will be indicted for tax evasion. Remember, we're talking about a jury of his peers will need to review this case prior to issuing the indictment. As far as I know that jury is based in San Francisco County.<br /><br />Barry is still a hero in the Bay Area, I'm inclined to think that San Francisco jury would not indict him.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Only a lawyer would claim the absence of evidence = proof !<br /><br />"Bonds is wildly guilty of, at the very least, using steroids. Why would a guy who knows nothing about Bonds' use of steroids refuse to answer grand jury questions and instead go to prison? If Bonds was clean as so many of his apologists would have you believe, than why won't Anderson answer the simple questions before him?"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, a grand jury will indict anyone who the prosecutor asks them to indict as the prosecutor is the only one presenting evidence to the panel. Perhaps you've never heard of the saying that a "grand jury will indict a ham sandwich."<br /><br />Gil, I'm hardly pointing to the absence of proof. Instead, I'm making the only logical deduction that can be made. If there is no evidence of Bonds' steroid use in his dealings with Greg Anderson what information could Anderson possibly be afraid to share with a grand jury? There can be only one rational conclusion considering the facts that he has been granted immunity and is willing to stay in jail to avoid having to spill what he knows.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />Almost any rational person who looks at all the available evidence would say that Barry is guilty of taking steroids. The only question that remains is whether he can be proven guilty of perjury. I agree with Jeff that it is unlikely that he would be proven guilty with the evidence the Feds have right now.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John Kalafarski</b><p> 90%? As Ralph still says to Norton, "You are a mental case."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Yeah, I'm having a hard time imagining that 90 percent of all players use PEDs -- unless you include caffeine or nicotine in that class. I'm pretty sure that 90% of all Major Leaguers have not had their hat size double while in their mid-30s.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John Kalafarski</b><p> When the Yankees were at bat and Joe was in the dugout, he would do his coffee and camels. I guess some would say he was juiced also.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>If you guys have read any research done on steroids and HGH you would know that not everyone reacts the same way to them. If a bigger head size is what happened to everyone then we should have been seeing a lot guys on bikes with really larges domes like Bonds. The only thing that research has proven is that there is nothing conclusively proven about steroids/HGH, so I wish everyone would quit acting like they are an expert when they aren't. Not even the experts can tell you exactly what benefits you get beyond being able to train harder and what the side effects are. They can give you some generalities and that is it.<br /><br />Just because some hack in a newspaper or on the internet says something doesn't mean that it's true.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>"There can be only one rational conclusion considering the facts that he has been granted immunity and is willing to stay in jail to avoid having to spill what he knows".<br /><br />I disagree. And I am rational. Therefore you are incorrect. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Gill, since you're a rational guy and since you disagree, why not tell us what the other reasons for not testifying would be?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Well Jeff,<br />Although I would like to simply stand on my history and reputation for rational behavior, and not divulge the requested info, I know that a lawyer would then attempt to challenge my rationality.<br /><br />And as much as I would enjoy that lawyer trapesing in each obese, sweaty floozy who I spent too much time with, and witnesses who would attest to each party incident that surprisingly resulted on a lampshade on my head, if there were any (which I vehemently deny); I will forego entertaining all of us, in favor of resolving this trivial consideration.<br /><br />Specifically, although I am a proud citizen of our Country, and a supporter of our society, I do not agree with everyting which is incorporated in this system. One area of divergence is my belief that my body and particularly my mind is inviolate. As such, no Government and no Society has the right to invade me by force.<br /><br />This includes mandatory drug testing, testimony, and all other forceful invasions of me. I would object if I was served a subpoena and required under threat to reveal information. And I can understand anybody else refusing to be similarly violated. In part because our Society and our Government does not mandate that violation. They simply offer the alternative punishment. And the alternative punishment was apparently chosen in this instance, totally rational behavior imo. What do you think?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Gill, I actually appreciate that thinking very much. It is offensive on many levels to be forced to testify in a Grand Jury proceeding. However, it's the law and I all I can tell you is my own experience as an attorney who has handled over 100 people who have been subpoenaed before a federal grand jury and been given immunity after initially refusing to testify under oath. In each of those 100 or so cases my client had to make the tough choice of whether to testify or go to prison for contempt. More than rarely the client refused to testify and was jailed for contempt. In each of those instances it was due to not wanting to implicate a co-conspirator (for a variety of reasons). Keep in mind that in order to even assert the Fifth Amendment you have to show a Court that your anticipated testimony could form a link in a chain of evidence leading to your indictment for a crime.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />That's a pretty idealistic stand.<br /><br />Most people served with a subpoena would rationalize and simply say it's their civic duty to testify.<br /><br />The rumors in the Bay Area, actually I wouldn't even say it's a rumor, it's more like speculation. Greg Anderson has been bought off, which is less idealistic than what you suggested, but makes more sense to me.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>A well known sports writer wrote that Bonds competed while using steroids. Bonds himself admitted that he used the clear steroids, so there is no debate about this. The writer said that, as Bonds played and hit home runs while using steroids, the records are not legitimate. He said that whether or not Bonds knew he was using steroids is not relevant when evaluating the validity of the record itself. It may be relevant to other questions (perjury, ethics, character, etc), but not to evaluating the batting records he has accumulated. That he hit home runs while using steroids is what is relevant.<br /><br />In the Olympics, an athlete is removed from competition if it is found he is on steroids, even if the athlete can prove he didn't know or accidentally took the drug. The Olympics' working theory is that these drugs are banned from the competition absolutely because they give the athlete who took them an unfair advantage over other competitors who didn't take the drugs. If the athlete can show he took the steroids accidentally, the officials may feel genuinely bad for him but he still cannot compete because he has an unfair advantage. If an ex-KGB spy slipped steroids in your can of coca cola while you bent over to tie your shoe, you still can't compete because the steroids slipped into your coca cola give you an unfair advantage. Even if this rule is considered unfair to the banned individual, to let him compete is considered far more unfair, in particular considering there are 20 other competitors waiting to compete who haven't taken drugs.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>It is interesting where baseball chooses to draw their "lines in the sand".<br />This group of chemicals are out, others = the sport looked the other way.<br />A guy in the scoreboard with binoculars, stealing signs? Lip readers? Sneaky pete spitballers, and way way more is ok. Good lesson for the childern here.<br />But gambling is far worse than alcoholism, and a host of criminal actions.<br />I could go on, buy why?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>One just needs to read a book about baseball during the turn of the 20th century to learn how different things once was. I read in "Crazy '08" that during the early era of baseball the firing of guns during a game was so commonplace that a haze of gunpowder once hung over the infield during an entire game; when the game ended everyone unloaded their weapons into the empty stands. Things have really changed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Jay wrote:<br /><br />"If you guys have read any research done on steroids and HGH you would know that not everyone reacts the same way to them. If a bigger head size is what happened to everyone then we should have been seeing a lot guys on bikes with really larges domes like Bonds. The only thing that research has proven is that there is nothing conclusively proven about steroids/HGH"<br /><br />What the hell are <i>you</i> on? What "research" have you done? Do you even know the difference between anabolic steroids and Human Growth Hormone?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>David, I've read a lot various articles from various sources. Many of them scientific journals. I have yet to read one that makes a claim that they can prove anything about PEDs beyond the fact that they allow you recover quicker from the fatigue that comes from training and playing. They make no claims that it automatically makes you better at whatever it is that you are doing. It jsut means you can recover more quickly which will allow you to train more to try and become better at whatever it is that you are trying to do.<br /><br />PEDs do not make you a better a better HR hitter. If that were the case, we be seeing a bunch of pro wrestlers playing baseball. You still need the talent to hit a ball. Taking PEDs doesn't improve that talent without training.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Paying taxes is pretty offensive to a lot of people, would you be prepared to go to jail so that you did not have to pay taxes? I would much rather pay taxes.<br /><br />It's the same situation when you recieve a subpoena. You can ask and recieve immunity for your own criminal acts, now the feds are asking you to do your share in their investigation of a possible crime against the U.S.. To me, that's a reasonable request and much more preferable than sitting in jail. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>But you get 3 squares and free cable in jail <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jay, I think the overall increase in HR totals during the steroid era may be the anecdotal evidence that was not addressed in those science journals you reviewed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>The HR increase can also be attributed to cozier ballparks too. Owners know that HRs sell tickets, so they are going to want parks that are friendlier to hitters.<br /><br />jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jay, do you still believe in Santa Claus? Can you at least admit that your arguments are getting further and further out there?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Jay wrote:<br /><br />"PEDs do not make you a better a better HR hitter."<br /><br />So I guess the story is, he didn't use them, but even if he had, they would not have helped.<br /><br />Right. Thirty pounds or so of extra muscle wouldn't turn some former fly-outs into dingers.<br /><br />How naive of us to believe that.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Show me scientific proof. There is none. I've never once said that PEDs don't help you get bigger. That's a result of being able to recover from your training routine faster, but just because you've bulked up doesn't mean you are going to hitter better or further. That takes talent and PEDs don't increase talent.<br /><br />You claim that pop flies become homers because of PEDs. Where is your proof? If it is true, then these players also creating more outs because bloop hits now become pop flies. <br /><br />PEDs help you recover faster so you can train more. That's it. They don't help you hit a ball any better, or whatever it is you are trying to do. That's the point.<br /><br />you wonder if I live in a fantasy world. I wonder the same about you because you guys believe in anecdotal evidence rather than scientific evidence.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />It seems like you know what you are talking about. I'm a big Bonds fan, the only thing I really wonder about is whether PEDs can sharpen your batting eye. Bonds is legendary for his discipline while batting and his keen eye. Is there anything PEDs can do to improve your batting eye.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jeff, I think that you will agree that "anecdotal evidence " differs from proof. And as Jay points out, there are other plausible explanations for the HR increases.<br /><br />And Peter: I did not say "offensive" my comment was "invasive". <br /><br /><br /><br />Sheesh. I feel like Barry teaching educated men that there are subtle differences between words.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Gill, thanks for the education -- I don't know how on earth I could understand this thread without you providing me a lesson in Evidence.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Taken from a Jayson Stark article:<br /><br />Useless Barry-vs.-the-world note of the week: OK, one more Bonds note, courtesy of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat's ever-inventive Jeff Fletcher. Bonds' career home run ratio at AT&T Park since it opened: one every 8.6 at-bats. Home run ratio of all other left-handed hitters in that park: one every 62.5 at-bats. In other words, Bonds has hit about eight homers for every one homer hit there by the rest of the left-handed-hitting population of the planet. Ridiculous.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I wonder what Barry's testosterone levels are compared to all other left-handed hitters at the park. I'm guessing about the same ratio.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />You know how I start dreaming up wild stories...how about this one.<br /><br />I'm not sure, but my guess is that since steroids are illegal, then the manufacturer's of the stuff are probably in clandestine labs somewhere in Mexico or Canada, who knows where?<br /><br />Suppose that a batch of steroids from Mexico were contaminated with poisonous chemicals, a MLB team trainer finds out about the contaminated batch and decides that he doesn't want any of his ballplayers taking the stuff, so he finds a better source in Canada and starts supplying his stars directly.<br /><br />How likely is this scenario?<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>So Jeff, you think that Bonds is the only lefty to take PEDs? If not, then your statement is ridiculous.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>No more ridiculous than your assertion that 90 percent of MLBers take soemething.<br /><br />How about this: Bonds is the only lefthanded MLB player who lied to the grand jury?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe Pelaez</b><p>With the current administration. ............

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Suppose that MLB's involvement with steroids goes beyond complicity. Suppose there were one or two team trainers that actually supplied or recommended particular steroids to ballplayers.<br /><br />Perhaps, Bud Selig knows about this and is keeping his mouth shut.<br /><br />Is this the type of scandal, that would get fans to avoid the ballpark?<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Whether Bonds lied or not doesn't change the fact that he is one of the hitters we've seen in our lifetime. Just imagine if he had played in Colorado instead of SF. He would have broken the HR record years and he'd be chasing Oh right about now. He set the record hitting 2 of the unfriendliest ballparks to HR hitters, and ATT being absolutely brutal to lefty HR hitters.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, suppose a westbound train starting in Peoria was going 40 mph. And an eastbound train starting in Reno was going 35 mph. What would the impact of The Card have on the time that the trains would cross paths?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Well duh Jeff. That would depend on which train The Card was on, and you haven't told us that.<br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Joanne,<br /><br />Yes...why don't you stick the knife deeper. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Actually, I appreciated David Cycleback's response to my question about the impact of the Card. He said that most of the information in the book was already generally known to serious hobbyists.<br /><br />That was a revelation, I was surprised to find out that hobbyists were that well informed.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Hey Peter. I think the basic rumors in The Card had been flying around the hobby for years, but the book did tie a lot of them together - at least for me.<br /><br />And I will honestly admit that sometimes some of the things you say leave me scratching my head - you definitely string things together differently than I do. And I know you take a lot of needling for it. But I'll also say that you certainly take it in good cheer and spirits, and that's really saying something in this (sometimes) thin-skinned forum.<br /><br />J

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cy</b><p>I realize that most people on this board have their minds made up on the Bonds situation. But just listen to this one.<br /><br />I truly don't believe that steroids helps a player all that much hit home runs. If just being bigger makes a difference, why is Hank Aaron the 2nd most prolific home run hitter? He is not that big? Why is Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, heck, Mel Ott for that matter, even in the conversation? None of these players was that big either. So size is not necessarily a contributing factor to hitting home runs.<br /><br />So here is the conundrum, how can Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, et al hit so many home runs. My thought now is that the BALL was juiced and that had much more of an effect on the home run than steroids. Now listen to my thoughts.<br /><br />The steroid era followed the strike season. Bud Selig and all of the owners wanted/needed fans to come back in droves. What better way to do it than have more home runs. (Chicks dig the long ball!) It would be much easier to juice the ball to get the desired effect than to juice the players.<br /><br />OK, many of the skeptics are saying, this doesn't make sense. But no one thought about this. So without any scientific research, everyone assumed steroids did it. But here are some things that trouble me with that reasoning. Why did the explosion of home runs only last a handful of years. Players were probably taking steroids before AND after the big burst. Why didn't anyone else in other years hit more home runs.<br /><br />Also during these years some not so big guys were pounding out home runs. Palmiero is not a big man and never had that imposing physique. But he nailed a few. And how about that very imposing figure, Brady Anderson. Remember him? Brady Anderson hit FIFTY home runs one year. FIFTY home runs. Does anyone really think that steroids caused that from him?<br /><br />Prior to this era, 50 home runs was an awesome number. I remember George Foster did it, but I can't remember too many others between 1962 and 1990. So does anyone think that Brady Anderson on steroids alone is in the same class as George Foster. It truly doesn't make sense.<br /><br />Now I am not saying that these players didn't take the steroids. I am just saying that it makes more sense that the balls were ultra lively, rather than steroids, to account for the home runs. Barry Bonds was actually quoted as saying that balls that he hit that were outs at the warning track, were now clearing the fences. A juiced ball could do that. <br /><br />I may be wrong with my assertion. But it is just as viable as steroids doing all of the work. Now I can hear the critics saying, "Why did all the players take steroids if it didn't help"? The answer is because they thought it would help. That is all that is needed. Hell, millions of golfers wore a copper bracelet on their wrist to cure ailments in their elbows, arms and wrists. Why? There was no scientific proof. But a lot of other people were doing it.<br /><br />My main thought on this issue did arise from the fact that non-steroid players, like Brady Anderson, hit too many home runs. And do any of you believe even on Body Building doses of steroids, could that alone justify his outburst and then never again happen?<br /><br />Just my thoughts guys. <br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Re: Brady Anderson: his teammate, Jim Palmer, has said he believes that Anderson was using steroids during his career.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Cy,<br /><br />What if Brady Anderson only dabbled with steroids for a year or two and liking the results, went full bore with them for that one year?? Then, after seeing such a HUGE increase in Home Runs, got to thinking that people might be suspicious and either quit altogether or went back to just using small amounts??<br /><br />If you want to talk about the ball being juiced, 1987 was your year. Wade Boggs went from single digit Home Run years to hitting a career high 24. His next highest season was about five years later when he hit 11. Wally Joyner had a career high in 1987 and so did Eric Davis. Mark McGwire set the Rookie record with 49 that year.<br /><br />Some people compared the ball that was used in 1986 to the one that was used in 1987 by dropping each from a height of about 20 feet. The 1987 ball bounced higher every time. I think the difference was because the new ball was either wound tighter, had a different type of material in the core or both.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>The possible problem (and cover-up) you are talking about is something I alluded to in an earlier post in this thread. A guy who worked in the New York Mets clubhouse for a number of years has been arrested for dealing in steroids and/or other PED's.<br /><br />That was one reason why I asked why Steve Phillips had a job with ESPN on Baseball Tonight. One of the employees during his tenure as GM of the Mets has been arrested and Steve Phillips is allowed to be on a national sports network giving his opinion on steroids and PED use and abuse in MLB?? That, to me, is a CLEAR instance of a conflict of interest. So is having ex-San Francisco Giants Manager Dusty Baker on Baseball Tonight.<br /><br />Two guys who could have had a direct influence in the steroid scandal and they are allowed to give thier opinion on it. Just think what their responses might be if they are asked directly if they knew about steroids in their respective organizations?<br /><br />To Phillips and Baker -- "Did you know that (an employee for Phillips and a player for Baker) was distributing- using steroids or other PED's?"<br /><br />Phillips and Baker -- "Gee, no, I didn't. That is just not right. Somebody needs to investigate this matter".<br /><br />Phillips and Baker not knowing what was going on right under their respective noses is like Ronald Reagan not knowing what Oliver North was doing. On the one hand, they either knew what was going on and were an accomplice for not telling about it or, they are incompetent. Eithre way, they shouldn't have jobs on Baseball Tonight.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Let me get this straight, you hit 50 HRs and decide to cut back so that you don't hit 50 HRs again? You are passing up the huge money that would come with a new contract as a 50 HR player and at that time, no one was thinking about or looking for steroids. So what reason is there to quit using them and give up all that money? No one is looking for steroid users. They are looking for corked bats.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>But when an altered bat is not found, then what?? People start looking for other reasons. If the player (Anderson in this case) increased in size or strength, then there would be an avenue to look down. This would be especially true if steroids were not as prevalent back then as they were in later years. <br /><br />Even if steroids WERE as prevalent in 1996 as they were in 2001, they weren't as organized. Anderson might have been getting his from Joe Blow of Mexico whereas Bonds was getting his from BALCO. Anderson's might not have been of a consistent quality or the person dealing them or advising him on how to use them might not have known exactly what they were and how they should be administered or what time period they shoudl be used.<br /><br />With BALCO, Bonds had access to the scientists who were making the stuff!! These guys knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They knew the ingredients, quality and how to use them both effectively and secretly. Then you can add in Bonds Personal Trainer and it would be like Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard making a computer for you and Bill Gates writing the software and sitting right next to you teaching you how to use it.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>uuuhhhhhh...what did all that have to do with explaining why someone would give up hitting 50 HRs a year for fear of getting caught using steroids at a time when no one was looking for that?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>1, 4, 3, 2, 21, 13, 12, 16, 50, 18, 18, 19, 21....<br /><br />See a difference there?? Going from a low to mid teen's Home Run hitter to 50 is quite a jump, especially when you go back to hitting Home Runs in the teens again.<br /><br />Something that sticks out THAT much is going to get people's attention. If the powers that be investigate or opposing Managers start confiscating bats and find nothing, do you think they are just going to quit? NO. They are going to keep digging and I am sure one of the things they would look into would be steroids. I mean they had been known for years and Ben Johnson had his Olympic Gold Medal and World Record taken away for cheating with them and that was back in 1988.<br /><br />The Commissioner's Office put in rules about steroids in 1993 it is just that the Players Association didn't want to abide by them or have testing for them. I think an aberrant stat like Anderson's could have been investigated and the Players Association could have given in on ONE player being tested, especially when it came to a lead-off hitter like Anderson.<br /><br />Anderson using steroids for one year and having a CAREER year as far as Home Runs goes and then quitting was a smart thing to do. He did it and got away with it. If he strung a couple of those years together, people would have REALLY wondered what was going on and there might have been investigations sooner by the Commish's Office and Congress.<br /><br />Just doing it once made some people stand up and say, "Huh?". But like I said, he got away with it and probably helped his future contracts because the GM and Owner said to themselves, "He did it once so we might as well give him a big contract just in case he does it again" because they would have hated not signing him and then he repeated the Home Run binge with another team.<br /><br />So, he does it once, gets away with it and signs more contracts for big dollars or he continues, gets investigated, found out and then kicked out of baseball for cheating. Give me a break, that is an EASY question to answer as to why he gave up what he was doing....<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />In a nutshell, I don't know what you do for a living but if your productivity fell within certain parameters year after year, spiked (tripled) for one year and then went back to basically the same parameters as before, I think your bosses or the people who owned the company you worked for would see this and want to know what was going on.<br /><br />If you were cheating (if in what you do you can cheat) then they would want to know that so they wouldn't get in trouble with the law or get sued and also so they can keep others from doing it. If you can't/didn't cheat, then they would also want to know how you increased your productivity so they can each it to others.<br /><br />I used to work in the financial services market (which is strictly regulated and where you can get big fines and jail time for cheating by using insider info or doing shadow trades of wealthy investors) and if my trades or my customers trades started going thru the roof as ar as being profitable goes, without any sign as to why, I would have been investigated.<br /><br />If I had cheated, then I would have lost my license, been fired and prosecuted, fined and jailed. If I didn't cheat, then I would have had to tell my superiors how I was doing this so others in the firm could copy it and make more money.<br /><br />Either way, having performance which increases to the point of being an oddity or sticking out like a sore thumb is not a good thing to do if you had to cheat to accomplish it and quitting before you get caught is a REALLY good idea.<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Nut real life doesn't translate to sports very well. In sports, if you start exceeding your normal expectation people are thrilled. If you can maintain it, they are delirious. Some may wonder if you are cheating or not, but overall, no one really cares. They just want to see you performing better. Perfect example, McGwire. He got caught with PEDs in his locker (yes, legal at the time but frowned up). Everyone just below it after his lame explination. At the time of Brady Anderson, there was even more indifference. I don't remember a single article being written questioning whether he juiced or not. It was just proof positive that the ball juiced.<br /><br />Track is bad sport to try and explain steroid use and why people would suspect it. In track, it's all about your body and conditioning. The ONLY possible way to cheat that has a major impact is steroids, so there is no reason to examine anything else. In baseball, there are multiple factors. You have a bat, ball and probably a few other things I am missing that can have major impacts on HR totals.<br /><br />Jay <br /><br />The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p>He did it for ego, more money, and fame.<br /><br />He sure didn't do it for the fans or the sport.<br /><br />Cmr Saltlick, by his clever Giambi "pardon" is setting the precedent for inaction when Bonds is subpoenaed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Giambi is not only getting pardoned, it's starting to look like he will be the only major league player deposed by Sen. Mitchell. Talk about a rinky-dink investigation.<br /><br />Peter C.<br /><br />Edited to add: Actually, I got to hand it to MLB, getting Congress to allow them to investigate themselves. That's like allowing Enron to do their own investigation into the violation of SEC regulations.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, in the rinky dink investigation how many other MLB players voluntarily agreed to speak to Mitchell? Did Mitchell have subpoena power?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />Sometimes I wish you were less an attorney and more of a hobbyist. You already know the answers to the questions you are posing.<br /><br />What I'm objecting to is the process. After that congressional hearing where McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro stonewalled Congress, our legislators could have subpoenaed more witnesses to get to the bottom of the scandal. But instead they went into this sweetheart deal with MLB and Bud Selig which allowed them to do their own investigation.<br /><br />Bud Selig went into damage control mode and made sure the investigation would be "toothless." And he even used the prestige of Senator Mitchell's name to make it look like it was a legitimate investigation.<br /><br />Peter C.<br /><br />Edited to add: Both MLB and the Players have a vested interest in keeping a lid on the steroid controversy. Jason Giambi in a very contrite AP press release today said that he was a small piece of a big puzzle. In other words he is only the "tip of the iceberg." I do believe it may be 10 years before we get the full picture.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>And Peter, sometimes I wish you were more of a lawyer than....well, whatever it is you are.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>In a strange way, I take that as a compliment, I never thought that I would be practicing 25+ years. I keep telling myself I'm simply in transition...but I haven't found my second career yet. So until I find it, I try to get more involved with the hobby. <br /><br />Net54 has been a plus for me and I've enjoyed being part of the Board. I know I'm off the wall at times, but I don't do it intentionally.<br /><br />Barry is a special case, and as much as we would all like the steroid controversy to die, it isn't going to. There's simply too much that is unknown about it. Absent a controversial book in the near future, we are going to continue finding out details in little bits and pieces.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>This nonsense with Bonds will pan out the same way that the Bill Clinton witch hunt ended. Clinton ended his presidency as one of the most popular presidents in modern times. (If you don't think that's a bi-partisan statement, just look at the money he's making public speaking and selling books). After all the BS about his personal life and his "perjured" testimoy blew over, none of it mattered and his critics found someone else to pick on.<br /><br />Same thing will happen with Bonds. He will retire one of the best baseball players ever and after the BS with the steroids (true or not) blows over, there will be something else to whine about.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Difference is Clinton's public approval ratings were high before and throughout the impeachment proceedings, and a majority of the public did not consider the Lewinsky affair & Lie to be an offense worthy of impeachment. Bonds' approval ratings are low and a majority of sports fans consider an athlete using steroids a major offense if not a death knell. <br /><br />If Bonds had cheated on his wife and lied about it to a judge, most fans wouldn't consider it an impeachable offense.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>David, I agree with you. Bonds was hated due to his behavioral issues well before his steroid use hit the public domain. Remember that Joe Jackson and the rest of the Black Sox were acquitted in a court of law -- no matter what happens with Bonds' legal problems he will be forever tainted to some degree.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>The only "behavioral issues" that Bonds has had, were/are borne out of his refusal to kiss the media's ass. He has otherwise stayed out of trouble- more so than most athletes who get arrested, convicted and are still popular with the media and with fans.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>In the long run the refusal to kiss the media's ass never hurt Ted Williams. But there was a time when it was touch and go for the Splendid Splinter.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Cobby, Bonds has forever treated everyone around him badly -- whether it be the fans, his teammates (remember Sweeney?), his family, etc., etc. You make it sound as if the public's poor perception of Bonds is due solely to the media, which it is not. The character and behavioral issues which separate Bonds from Hank Aaron is precisely the reason Aaron is beloved and Bonds is hated.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Ted Williams was certainly given the cold shoulder by the media and fans throughout his career. He was only given the respect he deserves well after he retired. During his career, fans had spit on him and had otherwise treated him like dirt. <br /><br />With regard to Bonds, being a lifelong Giants fan, I can't say Bonds has every disrespected me personally, or as a fan. Then again, I've never asked him for an autograph of tried to befriend him. I think it's the people who try to cross the line between spectator and "friend," who may have been hurt by Bonds' reclusive nature. I cannot remember anything he has ever done which is affirmatively offensive to fans in general.<br /><br />I don't know which family members he has ever treated badly and the only run-in he has ever has with a teammate was with Jeff Kent. Go figure. With regard to Sweeney, I think the two of them resolved their differences (which were never truly clear), so who are we to judge?<br /><br />Although I am a huge Giants fan, I'm far from a Bonds fan and even so, I can objectively say he hasn't been given a fair shake.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz. Can you keep it a little quieter, I'm trying to sleep!!!! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Ken,<br /><br />Wake up Barry just hit HR 760. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz. <br /><br />Stellar contribution!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>Peter, <br /><br />I just checked my controlled substance drawer and there is a bottle of winstrol missing. Guess Barry was here to steal it. Well have to call the DEA to report it missing......WOW, the Cubs are in first, must be dreaming.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZambrano Go Cubbies <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>The ball is going to auction near the end of the month. I still don't think it will sell for $500,000 considering the "hype" around Barry.<br /><br />Andrew

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>"Kirk Radomski, who pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in April to felony charges of distributing steroids and laundering money, met recently with former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, according to the report. He faces up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine at his sentencing, scheduled for Sept. 7."<br /><br />The following is a quote from Steve Phillips;<br /><br />"I was often accused of being in the Mets' clubhouse too much during my years as general manager (1997-2003). I have to admit that I am hoping that there aren't any of my former players outed by this process as it would indicate that not only was I in the clubhouse too much but that I was also deaf and blind.".<br /><br />Again, I ask why is Steve Phillips still employed by ESPN and allowed to give his opinion on the steroids scandal??<br /><br />A Clubhouse employee has plead guilty to distributing steroids and Steve Phillips has admitted to being in the Clubhouse "too much". Can anyone say conflict o interest?? Same with Dusty Baker.<br /><br />Ths is similiar to Dave Bushing owning and authenticating items while working for MEARS and then consigning them to Mastro. Mastro uses MEARS for third party opinions which are supposed to be unbiased but the main person at MEARS is authenticating and then consigning items to Mastro??<br /><br />David<br /><br />PS. This is the last I have to say about the steroid scandal because it upsets me too much. I say this because cheaters are cheaters and they are ruining baseball. <br /><br />Board members will condemn other board members for possibly altering a card or cards but give Barry Bonds (among others) a free pass. Newbies will come on here with stories of finds and get crucified for little or no reason yet admitted cheats get cut slack.<br /><br />All I have to say is remember the caution given about worshipping false idols. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Dave, you better just quit following sports and collecting cards because most players in every sport cheat in one way or another.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Perhaps if we spent more time enjoying the game/hobby and less time worrying about the conspiracy theories and getting depressed about how nothing is perfect, we wouldn't get heartburn over all this BS.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CobbTigers</b><p>It is tainted and Aaron is still the home run king

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>I don't know if this is o/t but it does have something to do with #756<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180149811969&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180149811969&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting</a><br /><br />Matt Murphy tried to sell the jersey he wore while he caught the home run ball...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Cobby33<br /><br />Ted Williams was cheered by everyone most of his career......but, was jeered by the Boston fans and their media.<br />I've been an avid Yankee fan since 1947 and I watched a lot games that Williams played. I, and many Non-Boston<br />fans, rooted for him. Why not....his name was Ted....and he was tremendous.<br /> He was admired and respected by many during the years from 1941 to 1960. I saw him hit quite a few HR's into<br /> the upper RF stands at Yankee Stadium and I was happy for him. After all, it didn't make a difference at the end<br /> of the season....the Yankees won just about every year, anyhow.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Kirk Radomski probably hasn't said beans implicating major league executives or trainers. If he had, New York media would have been all over the story by now.<br /><br />It's clear from what both Tony Gwynn and Jason Giambi have said so far that Bud Selig and MLB executives knew about the steroid problem and failed to act. The players are the fall guys and it will be 5-10 years before we find out about the extent of MLB's involvement in the steroid controversy.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Thanks for that factual update. Does that mean you won't post about this for another 5-10 years?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />Of course not, but there will be nothing really interesting to post about until a player or executive is ready to spill the beans. It's not likely an executive will because he will be ostracized.<br /><br />It's not likely a player will if they're interested in endorsements or continuing their association with MLB.<br /><br />So it's going to take a while before there is significant news.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>call someone who committed a crime (such as taking or distributing illiegal drugs) a "fall guy." He isn't taking a fall on behalf of someone else if he did the crime.<br /><br />I only hope that in the years to come that we aren't also calling him a "Hall guy," but I know better than to think that the world will see it quite as altruistically as I tend to...<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Canseco already spilled the beans and the public chose to believe what they wanted to believe. Note that even Canseco never implicated Bonds, yet some segments of the population have chosen to believe that he's the worst out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Cobby, Canseco never played with Bonds; that's why he never had the chance to implicate him. Somehow I doubt that Jose believes that Bonds is not on the juice -- hell, Bonds doesn't believe that he's not on the juice!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jason, Cobby<br /><br />Canseco has spilled the beans about other players, but I'm really talking about Bud Selig and MLB executives. Nobody has "spilled the beans" about their role in this sordid mess.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>peter you said..."The players are the fall guys and it will be 5-10 years before we find out about the extent of MLB's involvement in the steroid controversy." <br />explain how players taking illegal drugs can be "fall guys"<br />mlb involvement? the players were protected by their union so they could not be tested from what i understand?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dennis,<br /><br />I consider the players to be "fall guys" because they are taking all the blame, when in fact they are only partially at fault here. The owners have always been in control of the situation simply because they are the ones that write the checks.<br /><br />If the owners wanted to they could have and should have begun mandatory testing long ago, but instead they did not want to battle the player's union because they were making money from all the homers and TV contracts. The owners let the almighty dollar control their decisions and let the average baseball fan down.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Saying the players weren't at fault for taking the steroids is like saying that because I accidentally left my keys in my car then I am at fault for someone stealing it. I might have made a mistake but I am not a thief....The owners could have had more testing but it's still the players fault they were taking the drugs....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>peter your thought process amazes me. the players take the drugs so they can enhance their performance(ie. stats) and make more money and you blame the owners for this? the union is so strong that the owners can not touch the players and yet you still make the players the fall guy. please,explain???

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dennis,<br /><br />All I'm saying is the owners are equally responsible for this sordid mess. Also, I believe this distribution of fault is charitable, actually I'm speculating that they are more than 50% at fault.<br /><br />Even before steroid testing, most player contracts had provisions which forbid players from using drugs, however, the owners have seldom enforced these provisions because they did not want their players angry at them.<br /><br />Now if the owners had come down hard on their players when these contract provisions were violated, I'm sure the players would have cleaned up their act much faster.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I hope you would never argue that reasoning in court. I can see it now<br /><br />"Your Honor...The reason my client stole Mr.Luckey's car is because he left the keys in it accidentally. It is therefore Mr.Luckey's fault"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>I know what you are saying, if the owners' conduct was accidental I would certainly blame them less. But that is the whole point...their conduct is not accidental.<br /><br />The owners worship the dollar and the prestige that comes with being baseball franchise owners so they purposely failed to act even though they knew they should have.<br /><br />Bud Selig with his hands in his pockets while Barry Bonds hit 755 is the perfect symbol of "let's don't rock the boat."<br /><br />The facts will come out in the next 5-10 years and maybe you guys will see the accuracy of my theory.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>peter do you really believe that if an owner suspected a player was on performance enhancing drugs he could void a contract? be serious, the players union wanted more $$$ as a concession to drug testing. it is only since the u.s.congress has stepped in that they have budged. giambi has admited to doing steroids and still is a yankee,he has a huge contract which the yankees cannot void or else his worthless ass would be long gone and his contract void. peter you act as if these players are race horses whom the owners totally own and manipulate so as to put money in their pocket.yes the owners are greedy but the players along with their union protecting them is where the blame should start.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Look, are you saying that it would be MY fault if my 5 year old son hit my 2 year old son, -because I was negligent by not preventing it through some use of restraint mechanism that would disable my 5 year old's arms, thereby providing an environment in which the 2 year old could be struck?<br />or perhaps it is my 2 year old son's fault because he allowed my 5 year old to hit him? - walked right into the oncoming hand, for instance?<br /><br />This is bizarre logic.<br /><br />I say it's my 5 year old son's fault. Nobody else's. He did it.<br /><br />So, Leon would be blamed for his car being stolen, and have to go down to DMV to sign over the title and registration to the thief, and say "My bad, here ya go!"<br /><br />I know what you are trying to say, but I think it is a stretch to put the players and the league officials in the same boat here...but you're right, we'll see in due time.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>This will start another minor argument. What do you think of Curt Flood's new book, "A Well-Paid Slave." Personally, I haven't read it, but I have perused it and makes the same argument I have already made. The owners have created the market and the players merely respond to it.<br /><br />The owners have a more tangible nexus to the problem. MLB trainers and team doctors, they see the stars everyday, are you telling me that they didn't know the players were using all types of drugs? I don't believe it, if I was paying Jose Canseco millions of dollars, I would want to know who his friends are. I would know his training regimen, his health, even the number of times he went to the bath room.<br /><br />The reason why ML owners didn't jump on players for violating their contracts was simply, "boys will be boys."<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Curt Flood died ten years ago. The book may be about him but it is not his book.