Barry Bonds

[Crown@club]

Well my feet didn't grow, I guess thats the difference.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree! Folks will have different opinions, it happens with all sports records I think...when Maris hit 61, he got an "*" in the record books cause the season was 8 games longer than in Ruth's time...I thought that was a bit phoney but just my opinion. I think Rose must be in the HOF, others disagree. I think Kincsem along with Secretariat deserves the #1 all time ranking and many others refuse to acknowledge her at all. Opinions are fine, we all have them...but when opinions are displayed as "facts" innocent people often get hurt.

oh yeah, quite often people confuse the two. it's not a fact that bonds is cheating.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Again, stating as you did above, that you think he used roids is different than saying he did for a fact! That's where my problem comes in!

I personally could never say he did for a fact. Even if he admitted he used steriods. It could be he just gives in to the pressure. Furthermore if Barry shot up right in front of me and told me he was shooting steriods, I could not say for a fact he was shooting up steroids. So there is a gray area between opinion and fact.

Sounds like a bunch of hooey but I confess to have problems with this being a science guy and understanding the problems of reconstructing events from diff. viewpoints. None of us where eyewitnesses to any of this so its hard to establish when something becomes a fact. And there are clearly diff. types of facts with diff. levels of certainty.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Now we get down to how one is found guilty. I must state again in the case of Bonds we are not in a court of law. MLB holds the cards. And in some instances, it is probably more prudent to prove that you did not commit some act, rather than you must be found guilty by a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not all decisions of guilt or innonence are established by a court of law. If my parents had to resort to the courts when I "was" a little rat and proclaimed I did not eat our dog's food... finding the crumbs of food on my face was enough evidence. I could have said I fell face first into the dog's food and then it all just got caught in my mouth...

In Vick's case he can be tried by court system if enough evidence is even found to present an indictment.
If we had to go through a court system in the public schools about what a kid did or did not do, we would be bogged down forever.
If we have a camera that shows a kid putting graffiti on the wall he/she is sent to alternative school. There is a small hearing if the kid wishes to challenge the school district. If the kid wants to go to the court system then the school district goes through the court system. But in these instances, the standards applied in a court of law are way to cumbersome. It is up to the accused and convicted (by the district) to take it to the court system.

And even the court system is flawed.
I think there are very few people in the US that believe OJ did not kill his wife and is still searching for the killers at Wimbeldon and on golf courses.

I do understand your concern about certain allegations going public as in printed papers. But there are all sorts of levels that can be used to establish what did or did not happen. The court system is not the only method used, as valuable as it is. I happen to believe that Bond's used steroids based on all I have read. (Especially based on what Z put up about Bonds proclaiming that he may have been given steriods but did not know it).
This wont be taken to court unless MLB takes the record Bond's will surely break away from him based on steroid use. Or... if Bonds is found to have lied to a grand jury and other evidence comes to light and MLB nullifies the record at a later date.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...used_steroids/




i really think bonds was out to use something that would extend his career--he had the ability to break the record if he stayed out there long enough--like the guy wrote at the end of the second article above, bonds was a hitter long before he started using anything.

thing is, a lot of people thought griffey jr could break the record, but injuries affect him pretty often--so he may not do it. so, altho bonds had the talent, the ability--what about artificially extending his career? after all, if you play longer, obviously you can get more runs, etc.

at any rate, the record imo will be tarnished-but it will still be his record.

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...used_steroids/




i really think bonds was out to use something that would extend his career--he had the ability to break the record if he stayed out there long enough--like the guy wrote at the end of the second article above, bonds was a hitter long before he started using anything.

thing is, a lot of people thought griffey jr could break the record, but injuries affect him pretty often--so he may not do it. so, altho bonds had the talent, the ability--what about artificially extending his career? after all, if you play longer, obviously you can get more runs, etc.

at any rate, the record imo will be tarnished-but it will still be his record.

Lets look at some facts and see where they were derived.

1. Hank Aaron has stated he will not attend the game or games Barry Bonds ties/breaks his record.

a.pure jealousy
b.he thinks his record is broken illegally
c.he actually will end up attending
d.he would not have attended no matter who breaks his record

waddaya think, why wont Hank attend? You can add some more choices if you wish.

2. How come Bud Selig has not yet decided if he will attend?

Oops I cant state that 1 or 2 are facts. I did not personally hear these men say this. I read that they said this.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Lets look at some facts and see where they were derived.

1. Hank Aaron has stated he will not attend the game or games Barry Bonds ties/breaks his record.

a.pure jealousy
b.he thinks his record is broken illegally
c.he actually will end up attending
d.he would not have attended no matter who breaks his record

waddaya think, why wont Hank attend? You can add some more choices if you wish.

2. How come Bud Selig has not yet decided if he will attend?

Oops I cant state that 1 or 2 are facts. I did not personally hear these men say this. I read that they said this.

well, as for hank aaron--if it was me, i probably wouldn't be there either. why would he need to be? but it might be a combo of what you put up there--i mean, the guy can't be thrilled that he's gonna be #2. as for selig, he should be there.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, as for hank aaron--if it was me, i probably wouldn't be there either. why would he need to be? but it might be a combo of what you put up there--i mean, the guy can't be thrilled that he's gonna be #2. as for selig, he should be there.

Selig has to attend, it's his job to represent baseball, reports are coming out that indeed he will...the owners simply won't allow him to not be there! Aaron...probably a combination, traveling from park to park at his age...it could take some time afterall, especially the way teams refuse to pitch to Bonds. Frankly, I don't think it matters either way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Selig has to attend, it's his job to represent baseball, reports are coming out that indeed he will...the owners simply won't allow him to not be there! Aaron...probably a combination, traveling from park to park at his age...it could take some time afterall, especially the way teams refuse to pitch to Bonds. Frankly, I don't think it matters either way.

yeah, i don't think aaron needs to be there, but absolutely bud selig should be.

[Bigsmc]

Bowie Kuhn wasn't there for Aaron's 715th, so why is it such a big deal that Bud be there when Barry breaks the record? I'm pretty sure Barry could care less, so why should we care?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

Bowie Kuhn wasn't there for Aaron's 715th, so why is it such a big deal that Bud be there when Barry breaks the record? I'm pretty sure Barry could care less, so why should we care?

he wasnt? hmm, didn't realize.

just everyone take notice of the pitchers name when he hits the record setter. the guy will be a future trivia answer.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Danzig

he wasnt? hmm, didn't realize.

just everyone take notice of the pitchers name when he hits the record setter. the guy will be a future trivia answer.

Saw it on ESPN this morning... I cheated. Also heard Milo Hamilton's call of 715 and the name Al Downing (speaking of trivia answers) suddenly was shaken from the cobwebs in my head.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

Saw it on ESPN this morning... I cheated. Also heard Milo Hamilton's call of 715 and the name Al Downing (speaking of trivia answers) suddenly was shaken from the cobwebs in my head.

well, i'm glad you heard that...helps put things in perspective regarding all the hubbub now.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Lets look at some facts and see where they were derived.

1. Hank Aaron has stated he will not attend the game or games Barry Bonds ties/breaks his record.

a.pure jealousy
b.he thinks his record is broken illegally
c.he actually will end up attending
d.he would not have attended no matter who breaks his record

waddaya think, why wont Hank attend? You can add some more choices if you wish.

2. How come Bud Selig has not yet decided if he will attend?

Oops I cant state that 1 or 2 are facts. I did not personally hear these men say this. I read that they said this.

Hank has said from the outset that this is Barry's day and he didn't want to detract from that....I heard him say that!

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Hank has said from the outset that this is Barry's day and he didn't want to detract from that....I heard him say that!

So the answer is d.

[timmgirvan]

That is the plain,simple,unfettered truth.....but don't tell the media!

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

If it was up to you,the only people in jail would be people caught in the act.You're assuming they want it to come out(the facts concerning this.)They probably don't.So,if they won't release the evidence,then people are left to go by common sense. It is political.They don't want the facts out before he gets the record.

My sentiments exactly. Couldn't agree with you enough. But this how our society is sometimes. Awful funny how Selig was quoted as saying that he has a day job and might not be at the record breaking game. Sounds like to me that he is embarassed and ashamed that Bonds will be breaking the record. If he breaks it on the road, hopefully they wont kiss his @ss and have a ceremony, he doesn't deserve or rate it. Maybe his buddy Balco will treat him to a dinner with some juice.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I sure hope weight gain and increase in size from 22 to 36 isn't what clearly makes someone guilty of steroid use. If so, mark me down as guilty too cause I'm a lot bigger than I was then.

People don't look at everything. Bonds came to SF in 1993 and played there in Candlestick Park through the 1999 season. In his first six seasons there, he hit 235 home runs in 888 games. I didn't use the 1999 season because that's the one that he allegedly started using steroids. The point is that in his first six years in SF, he hit an average of 39.2 home runs per season in 148.0 games per season. To allege that he didn't start hitting home runs until he started using steroids is wrong. There has been one season that was an outlier for him and that was the 73 hr season. I showed in another thread where even if he had only hit 35 per season after his alleged use started, instead of the 45+ he was hitting, he still would be close to the 700 mark anyway and averaging 35 a season wouldn't have been a stretch. Aaron and Ruth did it during comparative age years so why couldn't Bonds have? Also, consider the fact that in 2000, they moved to another park, one where the right field fence is 19 feet closer than at Candlestick. That surely has helped his cause too. If one wants to allege that he started beginning with the 1999 season and that he's added an average of 10 hr's a season to what he would have been getting, go ahead and take off 80. Hell, take off 100. That would put him at 651. But then also consider that he only played 113 games in his rookie season, only 112 in the strike year of 1994, only 102 in 1999, only 130 in 2003, only 14 in 2005 and only 130 in 2006. Give him some of those games back and it's very easy to see how he could be at or beyond 700 right now. Hell, u want to take off 200 because of steroids? Fine. Put him at 551 now. But then give him back 360 games that he missed during those years I mentioned. That's just over two years. Give him the 35 per season average and that's 70 hr's. U could take away 200 hr's from steriods and the guy could still be over 600. No matter how u want to look at it, he's one of the greatest hr hitters in the history of the game. That is a fact.

in 1999 barry bonds turned 35, an age most athletes performance long ago started to decline. he was already a likely hof'er

he is unique (at least until the steroid era) in that he is that rare person who was able to ignore age and actually get better than he was when he was younger.

1986-1998 averaged 31.61 home runs/season
1999 (34 home runs)
2000 (36 home runs)
2001 (73 home runs)
2002 (46 home runs)
2003 (45 home runs in 130 games)
2004 (45 home runs)

hank aaron couldn't do it. babe ruth didn't do it. willie mays was a sad shadow of himself playing for the mets.

what bonds has done at an age every other human being is declining in physical abilities is remarkable.

i'm sure steroid use had nothing to do with this singular acheivement


















if i was his neck i'd be pissed off at having to carry around that head.

but that has nothing to do with steroid use.

sorry for wandering off topic.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

in 1999 barry bonds turned 35, an age most athletes performance long ago started to decline. he was already a likely hof'er

he is unique (at least until the steroid era) in that he is that rare person who was able to ignore age and actually get better than he was when he was younger.

1986-1998 averaged 31.61 home runs/season
1999 (34 home runs)
2000 (36 home runs)
2001 (73 home runs)
2002 (46 home runs)
2003 (45 home runs in 130 games)
2004 (45 home runs)

hank aaron couldn't do it. babe ruth didn't do it. willie mays was a sad shadow of himself playing for the mets.

what bonds has done at an age every other human being is declining in physical abilities is remarkable.

i'm sure steroid use had nothing to do with this singular acheivement


















if i was his neck i'd be pissed off at having to carry around that head.

but that has nothing to do with steroid use.

sorry for wandering off topic.

Both Bonds and Clemens are gym and workout freaks....of which the previous genaration merely dabbled in. I don't know about feet or head size,and how that ties into steroid use or not.....I do know from my reading that you have problems in the reproductive area,if you know what I mean!

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

in 1999 barry bonds turned 35, an age most athletes performance long ago started to decline. he was already a likely hof'er

he is unique (at least until the steroid era) in that he is that rare person who was able to ignore age and actually get better than he was when he was younger.

1986-1998 averaged 31.61 home runs/season
1999 (34 home runs)
2000 (36 home runs)
2001 (73 home runs)
2002 (46 home runs)
2003 (45 home runs in 130 games)
2004 (45 home runs)

hank aaron couldn't do it. babe ruth didn't do it. willie mays was a sad shadow of himself playing for the mets.

what bonds has done at an age every other human being is declining in physical abilities is remarkable.

i'm sure steroid use had nothing to do with this singular acheivement


















if i was his neck i'd be pissed off at having to carry around that head.

but that has nothing to do with steroid use.

sorry for wandering off topic.

When u say that Hank Aaron couldn't do it, u are wrong. Check out Aaron's numbers. Aaron, like Bonds, was a MUCH better home run hitter from age 35-39 than he was from 30-34. Consider these numbers:

From 30-34, Aaron hit 40 or more hr's one time. From 35-39, he did it three times, including hitting a career high of 47 at age 37. I looked at comparing Aaron to Bonds since they are the two top home run hitters of all-time. For the purposes of this study, I counted total at bats as the official ones PLUS walks since those aren't counted as official at bats.

By age
30
Aaron 24 hr in 632 at bats.....1 per 26.3 at bats
Bonds 33 hr in 626 at bats.....1 per 19.0 at bats

31
Aaron 32 in 630....19.7
Bonds 42 in 668....15.9

32
Aaron 44 in 679......15.4
Bonds 40 in 677......16.9

33
Aaron 39 in 663......17.0
Bonds 37 in 682......18.4

34
Aaron 29 in 670......23.1
Bonds 34 in 428......12.6

35
Aaron 44 in 634.....14.4
Bonds 49 in 653.......12.2

36
Aaron 38 in 590......15.5
Bonds 73 in 653......8.9

37
Aaron 47 in 566........12.0
Bonds 46 in 601........13.1

38
Aaron 34 in 541........15.9
Bonds 45 in 538.......12.0

39
Aaron 40 in 460.....11.5
Bonds 45 in 605.......13.4

Totals
30-34
Aaron 168 in 3274...19.5
Bonds 186 in 3081....16.6

35-39
Aaron 203 in 2791.....13.7
Bonds 258 in 2994.....11.6

What the numbers show was that Barry was a more prolific home run hitter than Aaron was from 30-34 and he also was from 35-59. But what is interesting is how much better Aaron was from 35-39 than he was over the previous five years. His increase in production is nearly identical to what Bonds' was. And that's including Bonds' miracle 73 hr season. Everyone is automatically assuming that Bonds' increased production is due to steroids but nobody ever would say that same thing about Aaron even though he improved during a comparative period by just as much as Bonds did. At ages 37 and 39, Aaron hit homers at a more prolific rate than Bonds did. I bet nobody knew that. The big problem people have is comprehending how Bonds is able to keep doing what he's doing after the age of 40. For me, it's not too hard to understand. The advances that have been made in training are incredible. During a lot of Aaron's career, guys had to get off-season jobs in order to pay their bills. Nowdays, they train and condition year round. Even taking away the illegal stuff, the legal stuff they can use is so much better than when Aaron and especially when Ruth played. Plus, it should not be forgotten that Bonds was probably a better athlete than Aaron to start with. People want to automatically say that because he's doing things that haven't ever been done before that he HAS to be doing something illegal. I just don't buy that. When Babe Ruth was doing things that had never been seen before, nobody thought it was illegal. When Hank was getting better with age, nobody thought it was illegal. When Nolan Ryan was striking out 300 batters and pitching no-hitters after the age of 40, nobody thought it was illegal. When Roger Clemens is winning 18 games at 41 and finishing with sub 2.00 era's at 42, nobody is saying it's illegal. The point is that players that are among the greatest in the history of the game are considered as such because they can do things that not everyone can do. If everyone could do the special things that these superstars could do, everyone would.

[Mortimer]

Kingy;


Some peole here are JohnnyRebs...don't ya think?


I called you that a while ago ..not knowing.

It's all in jest..



...but with a little tiny bit of truth underneath.....aye???