756*

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

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.

Barry is still a hero in the Bay Area, I'm inclined to think that San Francisco jury would not indict him.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Only a lawyer would claim the absence of evidence = proof !

"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: Jeff Lichtman

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."

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: peter chao

Gil,

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.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Kalafarski

90%? As Ralph still says to Norton, "You are a mental case."

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: John Kalafarski

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: jay behrens

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.

Just because some hack in a newspaper or on the internet says something doesn't mean that it's true.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

"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".

I disagree. And I am rational. Therefore you are incorrect.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: Gilbert Maines

Well Jeff,
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.

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.

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.

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: Jeff Lichtman

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: peter chao

Gil,

That's a pretty idealistic stand.

Most people served with a subpoena would rationalize and simply say it's their civic duty to testify.

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.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

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.

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: identify7

It is interesting where baseball chooses to draw their "lines in the sand".
This group of chemicals are out, others = the sport looked the other way.
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.
But gambling is far worse than alcoholism, and a host of criminal actions.
I could go on, buy why?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: David Atkatz

Jay wrote:

"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"

What the hell are you on? What "research" have you done? Do you even know the difference between anabolic steroids and Human Growth Hormone?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

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.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

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.

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.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

But you get 3 squares and free cable in jail

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: jay behrens

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.

jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: David Atkatz

Jay wrote:

"PEDs do not make you a better a better HR hitter."

So I guess the story is, he didn't use them, but even if he had, they would not have helped.

Right. Thirty pounds or so of extra muscle wouldn't turn some former fly-outs into dingers.

How naive of us to believe that.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jay,

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.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

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.

And Peter: I did not say "offensive" my comment was "invasive".



Sheesh. I feel like Barry teaching educated men that there are subtle differences between words.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: jay behrens

Taken from a Jayson Stark article:

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.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: peter chao

Jeff,

You know how I start dreaming up wild stories...how about this one.

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?

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.

How likely is this scenario?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

So Jeff, you think that Bonds is the only lefty to take PEDs? If not, then your statement is ridiculous.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

No more ridiculous than your assertion that 90 percent of MLBers take soemething.

How about this: Bonds is the only lefthanded MLB player who lied to the grand jury?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Pelaez

With the current administration. ............

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

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.

Perhaps, Bud Selig knows about this and is keeping his mouth shut.

Is this the type of scandal, that would get fans to avoid the ballpark?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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: Joann

Well duh Jeff. That would depend on which train The Card was on, and you haven't told us that.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Joanne,

Yes...why don't you stick the knife deeper. 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.

That was a revelation, I was surprised to find out that hobbyists were that well informed.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

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.

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.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

I realize that most people on this board have their minds made up on the Bonds situation. But just listen to this one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Just my thoughts guys.

Sincerely,

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Brady Anderson: his teammate, Jim Palmer, has said he believes that Anderson was using steroids during his career.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Cy,

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??

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.

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.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

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.

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.

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?

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?"

Phillips and Baker -- "Gee, no, I didn't. That is just not right. Somebody needs to investigate this matter".

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.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

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.

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.

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.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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?

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

1, 4, 3, 2, 21, 13, 12, 16, 50, 18, 18, 19, 21....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

David

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Jay,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

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.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.