A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
guru wrote:...I really think people here are underestimating the good people in the bay area. Lawyers are pretty good at seating impartial juries, and when push comes to shove people in that position take it seriously and follow the evidence, especially in a federal trial.
There are more SF Chron pieces in the sports section (not directly linked on their front page),including one by Ray Ratto that starts:
<<(11-15) 21:06 PST -- Once again, the International Conclusion-Jumping Championships are being held, and once again the topic is our own B. Lamar Bonds. So let's begin. Oh, and tie your shoes.
Item One: "The government must have a very strong case to bother indicting him."
Maybe. And maybe not.
This is not going to be an easy case to make in this town with a jury pool that could include a Giants fan, a libertarian or just an ornery cuss who distrusts the government in general. ....>>
MJD wrote:I am just telling you what I am reading. Maybe the fact that it is such an important record might mean they will do something about it.
If MLB selectively expunges the performances of Bonds and no one else, it will open up a can of worms.
Not if there is solid date documentation regarding usage.
But solid date documentation already exists for other athletes like Palmeiro, who flunked a drug test and Giambi who's admitted to the grand jury and George Mitchell, the whats and whens of his PED usage. What's your point?
MJD wrote:I am just telling you what I am reading. Maybe the fact that it is such an important record might mean they will do something about it.
If MLB selectively expunges the performances of Bonds and no one else, it will open up a can of worms.
Not if there is solid date documentation regarding usage.
But solid date documentation already exists for other athletes like Palmeiro, who flunked a drug test and Giambi who's admitted to the grand jury and George Mitchell, the whats and whens of his PED usage. What's your point?
Is there? Are there documents that showed WHEN they used, not just flunked tests and testimony confrming THAT they used? If so, then of course.
ANYONE who has a documented record of when they were using PED's should have all stats redacted from the record books during that time. At least in the case of Bonds, we know there is in the BALCO records that timeline.
<<...And finally, there is one last conclusion not to be jumped. That with Bonds indicted, the Steroid Era is finally behind us, and baseball can dance free and untainted. No, it's in front of us, halogen high-beams right through our corneas, and it's going to stay in front of us for at least as long as it took for the drugs to become a full-blown era.
No player can be presumed to be clean on his say-so or the lack of a positive test administered by those crack scientists working for MLB. The presumption of innocence works in a courtroom but nowhere else in our judgmental society. We conclusion-jump because we have too much time on our hands and too much media to allow for the dead air required to reconfirm baseball's chemical virtue.
In other words, think 30 years, give or take a pennant race.>>
MJD wrote:I am just telling you what I am reading. Maybe the fact that it is such an important record might mean they will do something about it.
If MLB selectively expunges the performances of Bonds and no one else, it will open up a can of worms.
Not if there is solid date documentation regarding usage.
But solid date documentation already exists for other athletes like Palmeiro, who flunked a drug test and Giambi who's admitted to the grand jury and George Mitchell, the whats and whens of his PED usage. What's your point?
Is there? Are there documents that showed WHEN they used, not just flunked tests and testimony confrming THAT they used? If so, then of course.
ANYONE who has a documented record of when they were using PED's should have all stats redacted from the record books during that time. At least in the case of Bonds, we know there is in the BALCO records that timeline.
You're forgetting that Giambi's name is part of those same BALCO records. Furthermore, when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids in 1988, the IAAF expunged his 1987 performances from the books also, though he didn't flunk a test in 1987. Tim Montgomery's 9.78 was expunged despite the fact that he passed the drug tests on the day he ran 9.78. Shouldn't the same thing happen to Palmeiro?
jazzcyclist wrote:You're forgetting that Giambi's name is part of those same BALCO records. Furthermore, when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids in 1988, the IAAF expunged his 1987 performances from the books also, though he didn't flunk a test in 1987. Tim Montgomery's 9.78 was expunged despite the fact that he passed the drug tests on the day he ran 9.78. Shouldn't the same thing happen to Palmeiro?
I already answered that question. We have no argument on that point.
I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were advocating selective expunging of only Bonds' performances.
Bonds gets the attention in this regard because he broke a record. A BIG ONE. It's easy for guys like Giambi and their drug-enhanced stats to be ignored because they didn't.
Trust me, put McGwire in Bonds' position, with Bonds' personality(an aspect of this not to be ignored) and we would be having the same discussion.
I've never met Barry Bonds, so whenever I hear people talk about what a jerk he is, I wonder if they've met him. Unlike Bobby knight, who has repeatedly demonstrated on TV what a jerk he can be, I've never seen any of these displays from Barry Bonds. Some people may have had firsthand experience with Bonds, but I suspect most people deride Bonds' personality on the basis of media hearsay.
Charles Barkley is really fired up about the Bonds indictment. He just threw out the race card on ESPN and called it a witch hunt. and selective prosecution. He also wonders why aren't any known White PED users being prosecuted. As I predicted earlier:
this trial will cause America's racial divide to rear it's ugly head once again
jazzcyclist wrote:I've never met Barry Bonds, so whenever I hear people talk about what a jerk he is, I wonder if they've met him. Unlike Bobby knight, who has repeatedly demonstrated on TV what a jerk he can be, I've never seen any of these displays from Barry Bonds. Some people may have had firsthand experience with Bonds, but I suspect most people deride Bonds' personality on the basis of media hearsay.
I've never actually met Bonds, but did have occasion to spend 5-10 minutes with him standing behind my seat at a hockey game while he berated the poor usher about proper accomodations for him, his wife, his babe in arms and his 350lb bodyguard.
Beyond that,I've talked to a few local sportswriters, and read/heard many more on the radio and the unanimous opinion is that he's one of the biggest assholes ever to walk the planet. The "media hearsay" is an honest reputation--in my considered judgment--that Bonds earned well.
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 had this distaste for Bonds the human for years; didn't stop me from eagerly going to watch him play; the night he hit 71 and 72 was incredible. Even knowing what we know now)
It is my understanding (not personal knowledge) that Bonds has the reputation that he does because he has earned it from many repeated instances since forever -- this is not a BALCO-era occurrence.
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).
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.
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....
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.
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.
