Barry Bonds

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by The Bid

If the glove dont fit......

You can't catch the ball!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Bonds certainly isn't the only one to cheat,but he is the one who wants the most coveted record in the sport.Sosa,and Mc Gwire would get the same disgust from the fans (if they were going for this record with padded stats.)

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Bonds certainly isn't the only one to cheat,but he is the one who wants the most coveted record in the sport.Sosa,and Mc Gwire would get the same disgust from the fans (if they were going for this record with padded stats.)

I personally still have Maris with the single season HR record. A-Rod is going for it this year in my world.

[The Bid]

Mac and Sosa knew they cheated. Bonds still wont admit that hes taken steroids, its not rocket science. Giambi implicated him and so have others. Giambi went from being a monster, to being a GOAT. He should have his contract voided and be forced to pay back all the money he got.

Bonds should be ashamed of himself for cheating his way into the record books.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I personally still have Maris with the single season HR record. A-Rod is going for it this year in my world.

But Maris played in 8 more games than Ruth...

[ELA]

In certain respects this is a frivolous debate. As of now, Bonds innocence or guilt is not a legal issue or a question before a court of law. The infrastructure does not exist to bring this issue to any substantial or real conclusion. This is very unfortunate in my eyes. MLB is guilty of a complete lack of governance, self-governance, or whatever you want to call it, and negligence as well in setting any assemblence of standards.

To me, this takes away from the what is at the core or the essense of the sport. I remember when Mark McGuire was going for the season HR record. Primetime TV, every major station broke away from their regular programming to show McGuire's next at bat. I remember when he hit that record breaking HR. I was single at the time, sitting at home doing some work. I remember how I felt when I watched it. I remember feeling like I was part of history -- watching it live, seeing it, experiencing it. Call it corny, but I remember standing up, alone, in my home, and clapping. I also remember, even though I was single, feeling that one day I would be able to tell my son that I saw it live. But I also remember how I felt when the talk of steriod, enhancement, etc. use came about. It took something away from it.

Unfortunately, this is not an issue of guilt or innocence. His freedom is not on the line or anything of the like. This more may be a case of a court of morality, and everyone having a different sense of values and judgements.

Anyway, great points and discussion.

Eric

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ELA

In certain respects this is a frivolous debate. As of now, Bonds innocence or guilt is not a legal issue or a question before a court of law. The infrastructure does not exist to bring this issue to any substantial or real conclusion. This is very unfortunate in my eyes. MLB is guilty of a complete lack of governance, self-governance, or whatever you want to call it, and negligence as well in setting any assemblence of standards.

To me, this takes away from the what is at the core or the essense of the sport. I remember when Mark McGuire was going for the season HR record. Primetime TV, every major station broke away from their regular programming to show McGuire's next at bat. I remember when he hit that record breaking HR. I was single at the time, sitting at home doing some work. I remember how I felt when I watched it. I remember feeling like I was part of history -- watching it live, seeing it, experiencing it. Call it corny, but I remember standing up, alone, in my home, and clapping. I also remember, even though I was single, feeling that one day I would be able to tell my son that I saw it live. But I also remember how I felt when the talk of steriod, enhancement, etc. use came about. It took something away from it.

Unfortunately, this is not an issue of guilt or innocence. His freedom is not on the line or anything of the like. This more may be a case of a court of morality, and everyone having a different sense of values and judgements.

Anyway, great points and discussion.

Eric

Good points! And yes, it is a shame that baseball has lost some innocense. Sports are a mere reflection of society at large and this is certainly an example of that...the lines become blurred and pretty soon guilt is viewed as a matter of degree. My only issue is our seemingly unending desire to think the worst of people we dislike coupled with a willingness to be judge, jury and executioner...we "know" this guy is guilty and that's that...history tells us this is not the path of justice, reason and equality...

[ELA]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Good points! And yes, it is a shame that baseball has lost some innocense. Sports are a mere reflection of society at large and this is certainly an example of that...the lines become blurred and pretty soon guilt is viewed as a matter of degree. My only issue is our seemingly unending desire to think the worst of people we dislike coupled with a willingness to be judge, jury and executioner...we "know" this guy is guilty and that's that...history tells us this is not the path of justice, reason and equality...

Thank you, and I agree with you -- and we have the very same debate when it comes to the drug issues and abuses in our very own sport and business.

Eric

[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.

[Bigsmc]

There is no way he is only 230 right now. No way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Good points! And yes, it is a shame that baseball has lost some innocense. Sports are a mere reflection of society at large and this is certainly an example of that...the lines become blurred and pretty soon guilt is viewed as a matter of degree. My only issue is our seemingly unending desire to think the worst of people we dislike coupled with a willingness to be judge, jury and executioner...we "know" this guy is guilty and that's that...history tells us this is not the path of justice, reason and equality...

innocent til proven guilty--i believe that. but no one is saying bonds should be in jail, and his freedom certainly hasn't been taken away without due process. what we're talking about his peoples' opinions on him, his character, etc. you know, kind of like talking about michael vick. altho comments have been prefaced with 'if', i'd say most feel that vick is lacking in character. that's not judging without a trial, it's using your own common sense. by the same token, common sense would tell you that an adult doesn't suddenly grow two shoe sizes.
also, bonds himself admitted to using stuff-creams, etc, that he said he didn't know what they contained. his own words cause questioning about his legitimacy--he has said that he used things given to him--but claims not to know what was in them. umm, yeah. his own common sense should have told him that you don't use something that you aren't sure what it is, and if you suddenly start to grow when you've started something new, hey, maybe there's something not quite right.

do i think he should be shown as the record holder when he breaks it? yeah, he should. is it tainted? yes, it is. by his own actions and words, it is. should selig be in attendance? yes. there is no way, since there is no evidence, that he should not be credited. BUT, it doesn't mean that everyone must stand and cheer when he breaks it.

[timmgirvan]

Well spoken,Danzig!

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Bonds should be ashamed of himself for cheating his way into the record books.

I wish that would be the case but Bonds could hardly care less about honoring the great tradition of baseball, just himself.

But then, I suppose if Pete Rose could do what he did......

[Ferdinand]

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.

No doubt he was one of the best all around players in the game. That's why it makes me even more sick that he would take steroids (My opinion) in order to gain even more of an advantage.

Great lesson for the kids!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

innocent til proven guilty--i believe that. but no one is saying bonds should be in jail, and his freedom certainly hasn't been taken away without due process. what we're talking about his peoples' opinions on him, his character, etc. you know, kind of like talking about michael vick. altho comments have been prefaced with 'if', i'd say most feel that vick is lacking in character. that's not judging without a trial, it's using your own common sense. by the same token, common sense would tell you that an adult doesn't suddenly grow two shoe sizes.
also, bonds himself admitted to using stuff-creams, etc, that he said he didn't know what they contained. his own words cause questioning about his legitimacy--he has said that he used things given to him--but claims not to know what was in them. umm, yeah. his own common sense should have told him that you don't use something that you aren't sure what it is, and if you suddenly start to grow when you've started something new, hey, maybe there's something not quite right.

do i think he should be shown as the record holder when he breaks it? yeah, he should. is it tainted? yes, it is. by his own actions and words, it is. should selig be in attendance? yes. there is no way, since there is no evidence, that he should not be credited. BUT, it doesn't mean that everyone must stand and cheer when he breaks it.

Mrs Z, it isn't a matter of whether he'll go to jail or not, he's still entitled to the same rights. Sure, we are all entitled to our opinion but when those opinions are expressed publically as facts...that's a different story. As you mentioned, in the case of Vick, I have posted here that IF he's guilty of dog fighting, he should be banned from the NFL for life...others may agree or not but the point is that I've made no statement of "fact" about his innocense/guilt. Right now, no charges have been made, no evidence of his involvement...so to me, he remains an innocent man. If you read the posts made in this thread you see that Bonds is being treated differently by many...no qualifying "IF" but "he's guilty" as a statement of fact! Some say it's no big deal...I say it's a huge deal!

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

There is no way he is only 230 right now. No way.

I know 230. Like you said, no way. My guess is 260.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Mrs Z, it isn't a matter of whether he'll go to jail or not, he's still entitled to the same rights. Sure, we are all entitled to our opinion but when those opinions are expressed publically as facts...that's a different story. As you mentioned, in the case of Vick, I have posted here that IF he's guilty of dog fighting, he should be banned from the NFL for life...others may agree or not but the point is that I've made no statement of "fact" about his innocense/guilt. Right now, no charges have been made, no evidence of his involvement...so to me, he remains an innocent man. If you read the posts made in this thread you see that Bonds is being treated differently by many...no qualifying "IF" but "he's guilty" as a statement of fact! Some say it's no big deal...I say it's a huge deal!

but, in a way, it's sort of like asmussen. well, maybe not quite. asmussen has had numerous violations--no trial, but many think he's a cheater, including myself. but then, there have been tests that have shown positives. altho as far as i know bonds has never been tested, he has admitted using 'something'. he certainly fanned the flames by saying so. like i said, if--well, when he breaks the record, he should have it. i'm not saying he shouldn't. unless and until it's shown that he did cheat, it's his and should be his. in many peoples eyes, it won't be legit--but he'll still be in the record book, and he should be. in the same vein, i think najran should have an * next to his record that he shares with fager, since he carried quite a bit less weight when he tied it--but that's just my opinion. same thing here. it's the same as when peyton broke the rushing yards--he was no pariah, but many still questioned the legitimacy of the record, since he had longer seasons and more games in which to break the record--but he was still the new #1.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but, in a way, it's sort of like asmussen. well, maybe not quite. asmussen has had numerous violations--no trial, but many think he's a cheater, including myself. but then, there have been tests that have shown positives. altho as far as i know bonds has never been tested, he has admitted using 'something'. he certainly fanned the flames by saying so. like i said, if--well, when he breaks the record, he should have it. i'm not saying he shouldn't. unless and until it's shown that he did cheat, it's his and should be his. in many peoples eyes, it won't be legit--but he'll still be in the record book, and he should be. in the same vein, i think najran should have an * next to his record that he shares with fager, since he carried quite a bit less weight when he tied it--but that's just my opinion. same thing here. it's the same as when peyton broke the rushing yards--he was no pariah, but many still questioned the legitimacy of the record, since he had longer seasons and more games in which to break the record--but he was still the new #1.

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.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Mrs Z, it isn't a matter of whether he'll go to jail or not, he's still entitled to the same rights. Sure, we are all entitled to our opinion but when those opinions are expressed publically as facts...that's a different story. As you mentioned, in the case of Vick, I have posted here that IF he's guilty of dog fighting, he should be banned from the NFL for life...others may agree or not but the point is that I've made no statement of "fact" about his innocense/guilt. Right now, no charges have been made, no evidence of his involvement...so to me, he remains an innocent man. If you read the posts made in this thread you see that Bonds is being treated differently by many...no qualifying "IF" but "he's guilty" as a statement of fact! Some say it's no big deal...I say it's a huge deal!

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.

[somerfrost]

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.

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!