Bonds Indicted [guilty on 1/4] [wrist whacked!]


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby gh » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:45 am

And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

HOF

Postby bijanc » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:51 am

gh wrote:

"...And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport..."

True. That said, baseball writers abhor him, and when first eligible in 2012, he's got about as much chance of election and induction as Ted Danson.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:16 am

Why does the media wink at or ignore other famous cheaters in baseball's history such as Gaylord Perry, who named his autobiography Me and the Spitter? Can you believe this guy even had the temerity to approach the makers of Vaseline about endorsing the product.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

HOF

Postby bijanc » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:21 am

Could it be that Gaylord Perry wasn't a pr--ck? The baseball journalists are the gatekeepers to Cooperstown. Ballplayers know that. The writers weren't that enamored w/ Steve Carlton either, but Lefty didn't break the most revered record in team sport.

The indictment (and conviction, should it come) gives the writers an out when Bonds becomes eligible.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:34 am

bad hammy wrote:
tandfman wrote:Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?

I wasn't. Just making the statement that he would have been in the HOF for his baseball exploits prior to 2000.



Can Pete Rose's career be parsed that way?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:02 am

MJD wrote:Can Pete Rose's career be parsed that way?

As a player there is no doubt that PR had a HOF career.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Why does the media wink at or ignore other famous cheaters in baseball's history such as Gaylord Perry, who named his autobiography Me and the Spitter? Can you believe this guy even had the temerity to approach the makers of Vaseline about endorsing the product.


That's easy to answer.

Baseball has a time-honored (and do mean honored) tradition in which the word "cheat" doesn't really exist. Call it gamesmanship or whatever you like. Getting an edge on the opposition by anything short of mayhem has always been considered a part of the game.

I remember in elementary school reading a primer on baseball (written by the likes of a Clare Bee) which described all the things that were part and parcel of the game, starting w/ the spitball and going on through various ways to scuff the ball w/ your belt buckle, what have you.

It's a whole different culture, completely out of tune w/ the English concepts of "amateurism" which pervade track.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:08 am

So can the same argument be made to let him in the hall as Bonds pre-2000 career? I don't know when he was gambling.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:15 am

The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF after the fact, and then made it retroactive so that it could be applied to Pete Rose. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:51 am

Looks to me that they can do whatever they want to BB then based on that(non-racist) precedent.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:10 am

MJD wrote:Looks to me that they can do whatever they want to BB then based on that(non-racist) precedent.

They've always been able to do what they want. Remember, Jackie Robinson wasn't allowed to join the Brooklyn Dodgers because of some court ruling a la James Meredith. It was strictly a MLB decision.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:12 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF


That's not true.

The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:42 am

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF


That's not true.

The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.

Does the HOF exist completely independent of MLB? I always thought that it was an extension of MLB. Wasn't the rule passed after the fact? Prior to this rule, there was nothing preventing voters from inducting Shoeless Joe Jackson from being inducted into the HOF despite this so-called gentlemen's agreement. I suspect the powers-that-be passed the rule because of fear that there might be enough voter sympathy for Pete Rose to get him into the HOF.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:16 am

The Baseball Hall Of Fame is completely independent of MLB.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/about/faq.jsp
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby paulthefan » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:23 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF after the fact, and then made it retroactive so that it could be applied to Pete Rose. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.


it is absolutely right. I love pete rose (as great a baseball physical talent as there ever was), but I have no problem with retroactive rules like this, they are right and proper and good for society. The HOF is not a democratic institution and should never be one!
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:28 am

paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:24 pm

bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:25 pm

Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:38 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.

You make a good point. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only stipulates that you can't discriminate with regards to the right to vote on the basis of race (15th amendment) and sex (19th amendment). All other forms of discrimination with respect to the right to vote are perfectly legal.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:23 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.

True, and you can add legal aliens to that list :)
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:54 pm

Bonds tested positive for steroids in 2001 federal prosecutor reveals, the year he hit 73.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23173928/
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby gh » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:34 pm

They may well have updated the story since you linked it, but it now says it clarifies that he DIDN'T test poostiive in '01, it was '00.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby RMc » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:52 pm

Here's the updated story from Reuters:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080215/sp_ ... gvgNjGOrgF
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:16 am

Umm...isn't this a bit of a distinction without a difference?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Daisy » Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:37 pm

I thought Balco were the distributors, not the brains?

edit: this comment was in reference to a now deleted cartoon citing balco as the brains of the steroid scandal.
Last edited by Daisy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Chetanji » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:29 am

Daisy wrote:I thought Balco were the distributors, not the brains?


Perhaps the cartoonist is making light of Balco. For what they tried to do, they sure got a lot of heat.
Chetanji
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Edappally

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:53 am

jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Chetanji » Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:31 pm

The Hammer on Clemens...02/19/2008 4:25 PM ET

Aaron on Clemens
Chetanji
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Edappally

Postby guru » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:34 pm

All traces of Bonds being removed from AT&T Park.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3315212
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby tandfman » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:09 am

Giants not doing so well without him.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209339 ... b_page_one
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby guru » Tue May 13, 2008 7:14 pm

guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Half Miler » Tue May 13, 2008 7:41 pm

The Major League Baseball Players Association said last week it was investigating whether to file a collusion grievance against teams for not pursuing Bonds


you've got to be kidding.
Half Miler
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: infinite loupe

Postby tlb747 » Wed May 14, 2008 12:46 pm

Half Miler wrote:
The Major League Baseball Players Association said last week it was investigating whether to file a collusion grievance against teams for not pursuing Bonds


you've got to be kidding.


I do not get it. What does that quote mean? I am not surprised about the lastest events. Go Giants!
tlb747
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Half Miler » Wed May 14, 2008 2:14 pm

My quote, or the article?

Personally, after all that's occurred, I just can't believe the Players Association would actually do this. Aren't teams allowed NOT TO PURSUE anyone they're not interested in?
Half Miler
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: infinite loupe

Postby Law dude » Wed May 14, 2008 3:42 pm

I know nothing at all about the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and its Players Association, so what I'm about to suggest is pure speculation.

There are some legal theories under which Bonds could sue the owners for a concerted action--an illegal boycott. So why hasn't Bonds done this, and why is the Players Association (which doesn't seem much affected by this) making the noise? One possible reason is that there is a provision in the cba that says that players cannot assert certain claims against owners--those claim must be brought by the Players Association under the agreement.

Again, I've no idea if that's what this is all about, but it seems to me that it could explain what would otherwise seem so inexplicable. Absent such a clause, I can't imagine why Bonds wouldn't bring this claim directly, if he felt legitimately aggrieved, and I can't imagine why the Players Association would feel that it has enough skin in the game to make it worthwhile pursuing this.
Law dude
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tlb747 » Thu May 15, 2008 1:12 pm

Half Miler wrote:My quote, or the article?

Personally, after all that's occurred, I just can't believe the Players Association would actually do this. Aren't teams allowed NOT TO PURSUE anyone they're not interested in?


I meant the article.
tlb747
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri May 16, 2008 10:18 am

guru wrote:All traces of Bonds being removed from AT&T Park.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3315212

Not exactly true. There is the marker where number 756 landed, as mentioned in the article. Additionally, on the walkway between the ballpark and McCovey cove there are bronze plaques in the ground to commemorate all significant Giants milestones that have occurred since the park opened in 2000. Most of those (75% or so) are related to Bonds. And there are Bonds t-shirts available at the concessions.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:59 am

Will this run as long as Oklahoma on Broadway?

Probe now going after Anderson's wife

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Master Po » Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:23 am

gh wrote:Will this run as long as Oklahoma on Broadway?



Yes, and at the end, they're all going to join in on a spirited rendition of "Anything You Can Do", led by Barry Bonds...:

"Anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do anything better than you.

No you can't.
Yes, I can.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can, Yes, I can!

Anything you can be, I can be greater.
Sooner or later I'm greater than you."

etc.

Oh, wait, that's from Annie Get Your Gun, not Oklahoma-- still, it could work, in...BALCO -- the Musical! -- someone call Mel Brooks -- I think this might be a smash hit.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re:

Postby bad hammy » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:43 pm

gh wrote:Will this run as long as Oklahoma on Broadway?

Let's see, this thread was started in 2007. Today around four years later the federal judge told the prosecution and defense to get together and arrange a plea deal - she doesn't want to go to trial with this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests