756*
 

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.

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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

756*
 

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

756*
 

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

756*
 

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?

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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."

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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).

756*
 

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%.

756*
 

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).

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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

756*
 

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>

756*
 

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

756*
 

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

756*
 

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

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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)

756*
 

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."

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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>

756*
 

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?

756*
 

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!

756*
 

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

756*
 

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

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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).

756*
 

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?

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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?

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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!

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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).

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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?"

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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.

756*
 

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 />

756*
 

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?