Bonds exposed: Shadows details superstar slugger's steroid use

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

"Steroids make good players great and great players icons."

That's the one comment in the above post that I can't agree with.

Alex Sánchez
Jorge Piedra
Agustin Montero
Jamal Strong
Juan Rincon
Rafael Betancourt
Rafael Palmeiro
Ryan Franklin
Mike Morse
Carlos Almanzar
Felix Heredia
Matt Lawton

These are the major leaguers who have been suspended for steroids. There is ONE great player on that list.

Now, I suspect that many of the monster players that have been discussed within this thread, and many more, have used steroids. I am much more inclined to believe Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco and David Wells' comments on steroids than I am inclined to believe that steroid use has been limited to the eight or ten players who have become poster children for a game-wide problem (plus the 11 other nobodys on the above list).

Why did the above 12 guys get caught and nobody else? I have no idea. Smarter chemistry, maybe?

I think that steroids give a hitter the ability to get the bat through the zone quicker and hit the ball with more upper-body strength. I think they give a pitcher the ability to use his legs to drive harder off the rubber. I think they give all players the ability to recover more quickly from soreness and fatigue.

But I don't think steroids are what give Barry Bonds the ability to dominate his peers the way he does. Over the last five years or so, NOBODY has come close to his numbers consistently. And we're talking about some monster players during the last five years.

It may not be possible to make a clean comparison between Bonds and players of other eras, a point that has been made again and again in this thread. There are way too many variables to consider when trying to decide if Barry Bonds was a better player than Babe Ruth or Willie Mays.

However, it is entirely possible to make a clean comparison between Bonds and the other players of his OWN era. Barry Bonds has been one of the top five players in the game throughout his entire career. From the late 90s to now, there's nobody close.

So if A) the man has never tested positive, despite the fact that we all know he's used steroids, B) banishment from the game isn't even a penalty for testing positive if he HAD, C) steroid use has been widespread, and D) Bonds has clearly been the dominant player - or A dominant player - during his career, then how is it possible to question whether or not he is an obvious first-ballot HOFer?

Is it because he's a jerk, or is it because he's managed to not get caught using steroids? Because neither one of those is sufficient reasons to keep a guy out of the Hall.

-Al