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 MJD » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:48 am

guru wrote:Lying at every turn is a good start.

Wonder if we'll see Barry do the Marion plea for forgiveness thing?



Using your son as a prop is another and I suspect we won't see Barry on Oprah.
Last edited by MJD on Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I suspect most people deride Bonds' personality on the basis of media hearsay.



Lying at every turn is a good start.

What does honesty have to do with personality? Even the most charismatic people can be pathological liars and the biggest assholes can be honest.


Yeah, until BALCO broke, I never had any thought that Bonds was anything but a most difficult human being to deal with, not any kind of snake.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby paulthefan » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:57 am

I want to refer everyone back to paulthefan axiom number 1 regarding PEDs... players with the largest contract $$ are most likely in the deepest. This one is based on basic economics.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:01 am

then why is it that most who have fallen afoul of (admittedly weak) testing have by and large been shlubs in baseball?
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby guru » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:08 am

gh wrote:then why is it that most who have fallen afoul of (admittedly weak) testing have by and large been shlubs in baseball?


As in track, it's the second-tier athletes trying to make up for talent shortcomings, and fading stars trying to recapture their luster.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:15 am

gh wrote:then why is it that most who have fallen afoul of (admittedly weak) testing have by and large been shlubs in baseball?


Unfortunately several scenarios come to mind.

1 The top players are warned in advance.

2 The top players have more sophisticated routines that are harder to detect.

3 With $100m on the line for a single player, they can fund research into drugs that pass the tests baseball administers.

4 The tests are suppressed

The fourth one is the only one that I have no faith in myself; number three is quite ominous in its implications.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:28 am

26mi235 wrote:1 The top players are warned in advance.

Didn't The New York Times reveal that MLB's drug testers routinely notify the team ahead of time when they are coming to town for testing?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:30 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
26mi235 wrote:1 The top players are warned in advance.

Didn't The New York Times reveal that MLB's drug testers routinely notify the team ahead of time when they are coming to town for testing?


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

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:34 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
26mi235 wrote:1 The top players are warned in advance.

Didn't The New York Times reveal that MLB's drug testers routinely notify the team ahead of time when they are coming to town for testing?


Yes, the tester have to get stadium passes from the team, so the team has to be told in advance. I wonder how many other holes that you can drive a truck through they have in their testing regime. And some people complained about Masback and USATF....
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 am

guru wrote:
gh wrote:then why is it that most who have fallen afoul of (admittedly weak) testing have by and large been shlubs in baseball?


As in track, it's the second-tier athletes trying to make up for talent shortcomings, and fading stars trying to recapture their luster.


That then, puts the lie to the suggestion that those w/ the biggest contracts are the deepest into drugs.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby guru » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:47 am

gh wrote:
guru wrote:
gh wrote:then why is it that most who have fallen afoul of (admittedly weak) testing have by and large been shlubs in baseball?


As in track, it's the second-tier athletes trying to make up for talent shortcomings, and fading stars trying to recapture their luster.


That then, puts the lie to the suggestion that those w/ the biggest contracts are the deepest into drugs.


Not necessarily, if they're using the drugs to maintain the numbers that result in the contract.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby paulthefan » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:31 am

gh wrote:then why is it that most who have fallen afoul of (admittedly weak) testing have by and large been shlubs in baseball?


that is a no-brainer, because they (the shlubs) can't afford to get the latest and best information on the testing... basic economics. They are always decades behind what the champs know.

On a fair playing field the best are the best. However everything gets transmogrified with big dollars as then the best appear superhuman as they reap a tremendous dividend (call it a millionaires tax break) in PEDs.
Last edited by paulthefan on Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Daisy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:34 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I suspect most people deride Bonds' personality on the basis of media hearsay.

Not sure about this. I lived in the Bay Area and i got the impression that his team mates thought he was a jerk too.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:46 am

The Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh makes an excellent point in defense of Bonds' records:
During the period the indictment suggests Bonds was taking steroids, baseball was not officially testing for them. Until 2002, MLB had no official policy about players using steroids.

When Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001, one of the years the indictment says he took drugs and allegedly lied about it under oath, MLB had not banned them either de jure or de facto.

There is no evidence, alleged or otherwise, that Bonds had taken steroids in the four seasons (2004 through 2007) the sport officially has tested for them.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/spo ... and-m.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:47 am

He's the Sotomayor of baseball . . .

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 532#405532
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh makes an excellent point in defense of Bonds' records:

Like it or not he is not been charged with taking steroids.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:56 am

bad hammy wrote:He's the Sotomayor of baseball . . .

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 532#405532

I didn't know about Soto and Mary Decker. You learn something new everyday. Ty Cobbs and Ted Williams weren't exactly known for being cuddly either.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:58 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh makes an excellent point in defense of Bonds' records:

Like it or not he is not been charged with taking steroids.

I'm aware of that. I'm only responding to those who feel that Bonds' records should be expunged.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
bad hammy wrote:He's the Sotomayor of baseball . . .

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 532#405532

I didn't know about Soto and Mary Decker. You learn something new everyday. Ty Cobbs and Ted Williams weren't exactly known for being cuddly either.

And having been in the Bay Area for the time that Bonds was a Giant, either the press is pulling the most massive snow job of all time (including doctoring numerous videos) or Bonds is deserving of his reputation as an asshole. I’d say maybe he’s a sweetheart around his family, but most of the available evidence argues against it.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:32 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh makes an excellent point in defense of Bonds' records:

Like it or not he is not been charged with taking steroids.

I'm aware of that. I'm only responding to those who feel that Bonds' records should be expunged.

Apologies. Didn't catch that.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Bonds performance

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:40 pm

a poster wrote: "...Bonds was also a great player before he became a committed user of what in many sports are PEDs. McGuire was always a really good player - not on the same level and did not have several MVPs that led to him getting contracts with the highest salary in baseball beginning rather far back. I am even unsure of my feelings on Hall of Fame, as I think he would have been in it without the chemical assistance (however, MJ might well have been almost as good, but not as "multi-evented" at OG/WCs)..."

Bonds was great prior to the weight gain, but not a 50 or 55 homer player as were Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, and McGwire even before they were 30. He had generally hit about 35 a year before he bulked up (and 49 once), then hit 73. He would not have done that (actually, no one had, not even Mays, Mantle, Foxx, Killebrew, McCovey, Kingman, Jackson, Greenberg or Ruth). Would have made the Hall, wouldn't have threatened or broken Aaron's career mark.

see:

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... r_best.php

http://mvn.com/outsiderradio/2007/07/23 ... -of-bonds/

http://www.e-sports.com/articles/731/1/ ... Page1.html

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... er_see.php

Bijan C. Bayne
bijanc
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mcgato » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:12 pm

gh wrote:I don't have time to look this up to confirm, but it's my recollection that even when he was of collegiate MVP status at Arizona State, his teammates nonethless voted him off the team (but the coach would have none of it). Can anybody verify that?

I remember reading about that last year or the year before. I think it was an excerpt from a biography on Bonds. Probably posted on ESPN's website.

As I recall the story, on a trip to Hawaii, Barry and two other players missed curfew bed check. The captain handed out punishment to the players (running laps or some such thing). The other two players accepted the punishment, but Barry refused to do anything because the captain was not his boss. The players met with the coach to complain that Barry was ripping the team apart. The coach said that if the players voted to get rid of Barry, he would do so. The players voted, and only two voted to keep him on the team. The coach said that since it was not unanimous, Barry got to stay on the team.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Re: Bonds performance

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:04 pm

bijanc wrote:a poster wrote: "...Bonds was also a great player before he became a committed user of what in many sports are PEDs. McGuire was always a really good player - not on the same level and did not have several MVPs that led to him getting contracts with the highest salary in baseball beginning rather far back. I am even unsure of my feelings on Hall of Fame, as I think he would have been in it without the chemical assistance (however, MJ might well have been almost as good, but not as "multi-evented" at OG/WCs)..."

Bonds was great prior to the weight gain, but not a 50 or 55 homer player as were Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, and McGwire even before they were 30. He had generally hit about 35 a year before he bulked up (and 49 once), then hit 73. He would not have done that (actually, no one had, not even Mays, Mantle, Foxx, Killebrew, McCovey, Kingman, Jackson, Greenberg or Ruth). Would have made the Hall, wouldn't have threatened or broken Aaron's career mark.

see:

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... r_best.php

http://mvn.com/outsiderradio/2007/07/23 ... -of-bonds/

http://www.e-sports.com/articles/731/1/ ... Page1.html

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... er_see.php

Bijan C. Bayne


I completely agree that he would never have made the 700 Club (probably even the religious one :roll: ) much less broken the 754 mark, without PEDs. It just a comment about the two players discussed by someone above. It also expressed my uncertainty on the HoF given that things are tainted; removing anything extra above what he might have done (including stopping at 40 instead of continuing), his record was a HoF one.

I soured on the HR stuff after the McGuire/Sosa contests when the pieces fit together enough to raise big questions about the comparability of the 'playing field'. By the time Bonds was doing the big damage I was not hoping he hit a lot.

Bonds was at the top but saw himself eclipsed by somewhat lessor players and felt the need to exceed, so to speak.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby cullman » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:51 pm

gh wrote:I don't have time to look this up to confirm, but it's my recollection that even when he was of collegiate MVP status at Arizona State, his teammates nonethless voted him off the team (but the coach would have none of it). Can anybody verify that?

I've got nuthin but time and found this article...thanks Google...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... man/060504

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Candy-Armed Barry

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:06 pm

Bonds' MVP, or "Bonds is the G.O.A.T." apologists have contested my columns on a few counts, one interesting one being that he has won eight Gold Gloves. But the ESPN article on his ASU days contains this assertion:

..."There'd be 15 scouts in the stands, and he didn't want them to see that he had no arm."..'

Bonds' Gold Gloves were awarded for playing LF. Manny Ramirez plays left. Frank Howard played in left. Ted Williams played in left. The Reds stuck Pete Rose in left. To argue that Bonds is baseball's greatest ever with "stellar left field play" as a plank in the platform is by definition diminishing- the two thirds of National League outfielders who are charged w/ covering the most ground, and making the most challenging throws, are the RF'ers and the CF'ers. When Bonds teamed w/ Gold Glover Andy Van Slyke in Pittsburgh, it was Van Slyke who was considered a fielding standout.

Griffey (cf) was rated a superior fielder, Griffey was younger, and tabbed by Aaron as most likely to break his record, and Sosa and McGwire captured media attention w/ the assault on Maris' mark. Some sportswriters considered A-Rod the best all-around player. All that had to get to Bonds in the late 1990's.

(red flag- home run production does not spike at age 36)

BCB
Last edited by bijanc on Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Candy-Armed Barry

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:23 pm

bijanc wrote:Bonds' MVP, or "Bonds is the G.O.A.T." apologists have contested my columns on a few counts, one interesting one being that he has won eight Gold Gloves. But the ESPN article on his ASU days contains this assertion:

..."There'd be 15 scouts in the stands, and he didn't want them to see that he had no arm."..'

BCB

Bonds was never a true five-tool player. His own godfather, the Say-Hey Kid himself, has talked about his lack of arm strength. Had he stayed healthy, Ken Griffey Jr. would have likely eclipsed Willie Mays as baseball's GOAT.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:32 pm

Bonds' Gold Gloves were very much in keeping w/ his ability. Having a cannon for an arm is a minor part of being a great fielder. And Bonds was a great fielder in his prime.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:43 pm

cullman wrote:
gh wrote:I don't have time to look this up to confirm, but it's my recollection that even when he was of collegiate MVP status at Arizona State, his teammates nonethless voted him off the team (but the coach would have none of it). Can anybody verify that?

I've got nuthin but time and found this article...thanks Google...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... man/060504

cman

A lot of these sociability issues have to be laid squarely at the feet of Bobby Bonds. The behavior being described would not have gone unnoticed by his parents when he was growing up. On the other hand, Bonds is a baseball player, not a diplomat.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Angels in the OF

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:49 pm

gh wrote:

"...And Bonds was a great fielder in his prime.."

Not so much. Great fielders are positioned by their coaches and managers in right or center, not left. Clemente, Mays, Kaline, Maris, Blair, Furillo, Piersall, Rieser, Terry Moore, DiMag, Speaker, Geronimo, Flood, Maddoxx, Evans, Dale Murphy, Pettis, Lofton, Torii Hunter, Carl Crawford all play or played CF or RF.

Name an all-time great major league outfielder (regardless of how they batted) who patrolled left field. Best I recall was Carl Yastrzemski- I'd stop short of calling him great, or ranking him w/ the aforementioned. Left has been tradtionally been reserved for players (nice hitters all) such as Greg Luzinski, Jason Giambi, Berra (when he could no longer play beh. the plate every day), Stargell and Reggie Jackson. There are, beyond arm strength, issues of throwing accuracy, judgement of balls in flight, knowledge of baserunners and situations, the longer throw from right to third, range, speed, and hitting cutoff men.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Angels in the OF

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:10 pm

bijanc wrote:gh wrote:

"...And Bonds was a great fielder in his prime.."

Not so much. Great fielders are positioned by their coaches and managers in right or center, not left. Clemente, Mays, Kaline, Maris, Blair, Furillo, Piersall, Rieser, Terry Moore, DiMag, Speaker, Geronimo, Flood, Maddoxx, Evans, Dale Murphy, Pettis, Lofton, Torii Hunter, Carl Crawford all play or played CF or RF.

Name an all-time great major league outfielder (regardless of how they batted) who patrolled left field. Best I recall was Carl Yastrzemski- I'd stop short of calling him great, or ranking him w/ the aforementioned. Left has been tradtionally been reserved for players (nice hitters all) such as Greg Luzinski, Jason Giambi, Berra (when he could no longer play beh. the plate every day), Stargell and Reggie Jackson. There are, beyond arm strength, issues of throwing accuracy, judgement of balls in flight, knowledge of baserunners and situations, the longer throw from right to third, range, speed, and hitting cutoff men.

BCB

Fielding is considered a different tool than throwing. You just can't put weak arms in right or center. If a guy can field/run but can't throw, you put him in left field. If a guy can throw but can't field/run, you put him in right field. If a guy can do neither you put him in left field. By the way, Reggie Jackson played right field, not left field. Babe Ruth and Sammy Sosa also played right field while Ricky Henderson played left field. Why do you think Bonds won so many Gold Gloves anyway?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

GG

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:34 pm

Reggie played a lot of left before he was a Yank. I think Bonds won a lot of GG's because there weren't many good fielders playing left in the NL in the 1990's. The most contested GG's were in CF and among the RF's. Were he a true five-tooler, he'd have occupied right as Van Slyke, or center.

Being one of the premier LF's in the NL from the late 80's to early 90's was as empty as being one of the top wide receivers in the Big 8 in the 1980's- who was one competing against?

e.g.- What merit is there being one of the top heavyweight boxers during an era when the superior talent is in the middle and lighter weight classifications? It's all relative.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: GG

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:54 pm

bijanc wrote:Reggie played a lot of left before he was a Yank. I think Bonds won a lot of GG's because there weren't many good fielders playing left in the NL in the 1990's. The most contested GG's were in CF and among the RF's. Were he a true five-tooler, he'd have occupied right as Van Slyke, or center.

Being one of the premier LF's in the NL from the late 80's to early 90's was as empty as being one of the top wide receivers in the Big 8 in the 1980's- who was one competing against?

e.g.- What merit is there being one of the top heavyweight boxers during an era when the superior talent is in the middle and lighter weight classifications? It's all relative.

BCB

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I would add that you would be hard pressed to find a better fielding left fielder in the history of baseball that was appreciably better than Bonds in his early years. However, I agree that a left field GG doesn't carry the prestige of a CF or RF GG, but I do believe that a left field GG probably has more prestige than a 1st base or pitching GG.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Like a Bucket of Warm Spit

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:04 pm

jc:

Agreed.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:09 pm

Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

rf

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:14 pm

bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there. The more advanced the baseball, the more sweet-swinging lefties one encounters (and switchers too). And even some of the best righty batters aren't dead pull hitters.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: rf

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:16 pm

bijanc wrote:bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there. The more advanced the baseball, the more sweet-swinging lefties one encounters (and switchers too). And even some of the best righty batters aren't dead pull hitters.

BCB


And when the ball is not traveling that fast, it is easier to get around on it. At 100 mph is goes to right more often, I would think.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: rf

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:33 pm

bijanc wrote:bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there.

Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment. :roll:
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

RF-CF-LF

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:05 pm

bad hammy wrote:

"...Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment..."

I knew that.
:wink:

What kills me is that unlike many followers of track and field, I've heard some baseball fans say, "Bonds was already HOF bound prior to 2000, he still had to meet the ball, he still had to have great plate discipline and supreme hand-eye coordination. Drugs can't improve that. Look at all the walks, and his OBP. No one else is close. Look at his slugging pct."

To which I'd retort- "If (for the sake of argument he took 'em) PED's don't help, then why take 'em?"

(then there'd be the whole, "Well that doesn't help him get around on a 90 mph fastball")

Like fun it doesn't, upper body strength aids speed and power- watch any powerfully built sprinter run the first 20-40 meters out of the blocks- and note how most of those w/ the fastest starts are built.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:37 pm

The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball don't understand physics and/or baseball. Of course PED's improve bat speed. The difference between a 400' home run and a 500' foot home run is greater bat speed. Furthermore, if it takes a batter a few hundredths of a second less to get the bat around, then the batter can wait a few hundredths of a second later before he starts his swing, which means that he can also watch the pitch for a few hundredths of a second longer before he commits to a swing. In addition to this, the biochemist who developed "the clear" claims that it increases an athlete's mental focus.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mcgato » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:51 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball ....

Plus HGH improves eyesight.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dixon and 5 guests