The Barry Bonds debate

[edney2polynice_]

something interesting that I read on a different forum:

Tom House, who was ON THE BRAVES when Aaron hit his majestic 715th has ADMITTED to using roids back in the 60s?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball ... ouse_x.htm

House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

So if House - an Aaron teammate - says that he used back in the 60s, why is it a stretch at all to consider that Aaron might've used? Oh, that's right. Because that would undermine the Barry-bashing tactics that simpletons like you use to demonize the greatest hitter of his generation.

also,



A quote from Mike Krukow..

Rationality? Mike Krukow, the former All-Star pitcher and now a Giants broadcaster, bristles at the notion. He remembers Bonds when Barry was a little kid in the clubhouse, following around his father, Bobby. Krukow has seen how hard Bonds has worked, seen how the media has treated him. And he's pissed. "The press has had a hard-on for this guy since early on," says Krukow before a recent game. "He got labeled, he did a lot to feed the fire, but with all that's been written the last 10 years, the smear campaign on this kid is just ridiculous." Krukow shakes his head. "I've stopped talking about it because I get so riled up. Especially all the hypocritical bulls--- from players of my generation, when they talk about Bonds and what he's done or not done." Asked what he means about "hypocritical" players, Krukow catches himself. "I've said too much already."

Seems to me Mike knows a little bit more about the players of the past than what has been said before.

Just thought it was interesting arguments towards a lot of haters on Bonds, who don't think MLB should celebrate his home run record.

[FaTaL]

i think house ended up having some knee problems from bulking up from roids

[FNQ]

It is widespread, it is a manhunt, and you should expect no less when your essentially caught with it and your breaking an extremely popular record. Now the fact that Barry hasn't exactly been a media darling makes it a lot easier for them to attack him... I don't really see what the problem with exposing this as much as possible is.

I mean, because other players did it, does that justify Bonds doing it? Is he a tragic hero because he's bearing the brunt of it while other, lesser players are getting away with it? Of course not - Barry made the mistake of using them, despite already being a freakishly good player, and the after-effects were obvious.

There is absolutely no way to justify using them period. The smear campaign is also Bonds' own doing... Were this a media favorite, I'm sure there'd be a lot more pro-Bonds articles. But he wasn't, so there isn't. He made his own bed, and now he's gotta sleep in it.

And this is coming from someone who likes Barry Bonds*! (although I do poke fun at this situation)

[edney2polynice_]

It is widespread, it is a manhunt, and you should expect no less when your essentially caught with it and your breaking an extremely popular record. Now the fact that Barry hasn't exactly been a media darling makes it a lot easier for them to attack him... I don't really see what the problem with exposing this as much as possible is.

I mean, because other players did it, does that justify Bonds doing it? Is he a tragic hero because he's bearing the brunt of it while other, lesser players are getting away with it? Of course not - Barry made the mistake of using them, despite already being a freakishly good player, and the after-effects were obvious.

The point is geared towards people who believe Bonds deserves an asterisk by the record, or believes baseball shouldn't recognize the record at all. And throughout the history of baseball, there are proven facts, rumors, and speculation that performance-enhancing drugs have been around during & before Hank Aarons time.

[backer55]

Good show edney, you make your point well. Good luck in getting the haters to understand the implacations of your view though. In their eyes Aarons day was "clean baseball". Between the longtime fans with their hard headedness and the "speak no evil" power medias bias, it's probably going to stay that way. Fight the good fight.

510 is a Jerk pure and simple while saying Bonds Was "essentially caught with it". Realising it or not, he promotes hate. He decorates posts with pictures of Bonds with CHEATER plastered across them and others with hypodermic needles. Until Bonds has Been proven guilty, failed a PHD test, or admits[not schilling' kind of admission] to have taken steroids, he is innocent and [like every citizen in the United States of America] gets the benifit of doubt. 510 is tring to lead a lynch mob, suposed to be a moderator, yea right!

510, here's a question for you. If you are a sports writer and someone denies you a interview. Does that give you justification to slant your article, spread lies and hate on that person cause you don't like him? That's what your saying when you say "He made his own bed, and now he's gotta sleep in it"

At least you're an A's fan.

[FNQ]

Haters.... hahaaha. This is too funny.

Obviously, this guy is a ballboy and doesnt know too much.... the pictures I 'doctored' were poking fun in an Oakland game thread.... Stop the presses, someone made light of the Barry Bonds situation! Oh my god, I'm promoting hate! Oh no...

What lynch mob am I trying to run here? You are the worst kind of fan - the overly defensive, trying to make it offensive fan.

510, here's a question for you. If you are a sports writer and someone denies you a interview.

You can stop right there. Obviously, you think all articles should be devoid of opinion and shouldn't reflect the writer's opinion.... which is ridiculous. Also to say a moderator shouldn't have an opinion either, also ridiculous. Not one article has said for sure that Bonds KNOWINGLY took steroids, though he has essentially admitted he used the clear and cream.

You completely missed the point, which isn't a surprise from your types of fans (the ones who turn it into something personal). The bed he made was being a jerk to reporters in the first place... so now he must bear the brunt of their wrath.

And lastly... get off it. Really - I actually like Barry Bonds as a player, not as a person, as I said. Edney's point was that Aaron could have cheated in a time when steroid usage was just as prominent, and is trying to make the argument that we could speculate on Aaron just as much as Bonds. Thing is, Bonds testified that he had used clear and cream, but that he didn't know they were roids. There's a huge difference there between the scenarios.

[FNQ]

I was going to leave this alone, but there's a few more ideas I want to dissect...

Until Bonds has Been proven guilty, failed a PHD test, or admits[not schilling' kind of admission] to have taken steroids, he is innocent and [like every citizen in the United States of America] gets the benifit of doubt.

Except in the court of common sense or public opinion. Regardless of whether or not they can prove it in court, Bonds himself admitted to using the clear and cream, unknowingly. Which begs the question - why would a professional athlete, a prominent one, no less, use something his personal trainer gave him without any idea what the product was? It makes no sense. But its awful convenient that we say he's never failed a test, since he was taking HGH (impossible to test for) and stopped roiding once it became apparent and obvious.

510, here's a question for you. If you are a sports writer and someone denies you a interview. Does that give you justification to slant your article, spread lies and hate on that person cause you don't like him?

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Since you are SO into American principles, how about 2 that are country is founded on? You know... the ability to have your own opinion, and print your own opinion? No, those ideals don't matter because they don't support what you believe.

At least you're an A's fan.

And we took 2 of 3 in the Bay...

[edney2polynice_]

Thing is, Bonds testified that he had used clear and cream, but that he didn't know they were roids. There's a huge difference there between the scenarios.

Well, Bonds was guilty of steroid use by the media way before the "sealed" grand jury testimony (don't even get me started on the leaked testimony bull sh*t).

We know Hank Aaron took 'greenies' similar to the way we know Bonds took steroids. The only mystery is whether Aaron also took steroids. If I had to bet my life on it, I'd say that he did.

[Ex-hippie]

Until Bonds has Been proven guilty, failed a PHD test, or admits[not schilling' kind of admission] to have taken steroids, he is innocent and [like every citizen in the United States of America] gets the benifit of doubt. 510 is tring to lead a lynch mob, suposed to be a moderator, yea right!

I never understood that reasoning. We may speak of the "court of public opinion," but it isn't really a court, you know. The expression is a metaphor. The innocent until proven guilty rule is a standard for a criminal conviction, and no one's saying that Bonds should be sent to jail before he is proven to have committed a crime. But that shouldn't stop us from forming opinions based on what we consider to be a preponderance of reasonably well-gathered evidence, and there's more than enough of that in Bonds' case.

[backer55]

Hippie, You make a very strong point and well taken. All i'm saying is that once you have that opinion, if you are in a position to do so, don't use your opinion "and" unsubstantiated rumers, guesses, lies and take quotes out of context, to promote others to condem and hate.

510, my being a ballboy in no way reflects my ability to speak baseball. My typing and spelling are left wanting but i'm sure you can get the jist of what i'm saying. Your right in some points and dead wrong in others. Why would you think that i don't want you to have an opinion. Your welcome to them as i am. It's how you use your opinion that is wrong. In my opinion, i still think you are a jerk or worse and will try to avoid your posts and comments in the future.

[edney2polynice_]

-= original quote snipped =-



I never understood that reasoning. We may speak of the "court of public opinion," but it isn't really a court, you know. The expression is a metaphor. The innocent until proven guilty rule is a standard for a criminal conviction, and no one's saying that Bonds should be sent to jail before he is proven to have committed a crime. But that shouldn't stop us from forming opinions based on what we consider to be a preponderance of reasonably well-gathered evidence, and there's more than enough of that in Bonds' case.

I think that's fine and all, but in efforts to stay focused on the original topic, does anyone see the hypocrisy in the media, and in 90-percent of all post discussing Bonds & steroids?

[FNQ]

510, my being a ballboy in no way reflects my ability to speak baseball. My typing and spelling are left wanting but i'm sure you can get the jist of what i'm saying. Your right in some points and dead wrong in others. Why would you think that i don't want you to have an opinion. Your welcome to them as i am. It's how you use your opinion that is wrong. In my opinion, i still think you are a jerk or worse and will try to avoid your posts and comments in the future.

Im not commenting on your ability to speak baseball, I'm commenting on you personally.

You have no right to tell anyone else what to think and feel, and absolutely NOTHING I said before was inaccurate. Instead, you think anyone who doesnt blindly believe in Bonds and all that other garbage you were talking about, is wrong. How I use my opinion is wrong? Ridiculous. If by any stretch of the imagination, my opinion carries more weight because I'm a volunteer moderator on a free internet forum, then I guess that's more of an authority issue that you personally have to deal with.

The whole point is - it doesn't matter what the trial says - it matters what the public thinks. The one outlet players have to reach the public is the media. Bonds burned that bridge and now is suffering the consequences because of it - if he had been more pleasant to the media, they wouldn't be focusing on just him. Part of it is also circumstance - he also just happens to be one of the best hitters ever, so by him using steroids, he took what would have been a great MLB story and has turned it into a scandalous soap opera.

So no... I don't get the gist of what you're saying at all. You are basically saying that since Bonds admitted to using clear and cream but hasn't been convicted, no one is free to speculate or form their own opinions. Communism died out in the USSR a while ago, comrade...

All i'm saying is that once you have that opinion, if you are in a position to do so, don't use your opinion "and" unsubstantiated rumers, guesses, lies and take quotes out of context, to promote others to condem and hate.

This is completely and utterly ridiculous... I don't recall telling people to hate Barry Bonds, I don't recall condemning him. See, what you are doing is projecting, projecting what I said into something other people have said that you take offense to. But Bonds fans like you, who are so overly sensitive to any sort of Bonds criticism - which he completely deserves, by the way - promote a lot more hate for Bonds than anything else.

[FNQ]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well, Bonds was guilty of steroid use by the media way before the "sealed" grand jury testimony (don't even get me started on the leaked testimony bull sh*t).

We know Hank Aaron took 'greenies' similar to the way we know Bonds took steroids. The only mystery is whether Aaron also took steroids. If I had to bet my life on it, I'd say that he did.

He sure was, thus my "you made your bed, lie in it" quote. I mean... take Sean Casey. Lets say he gets nailed for steroids, is there this big a fuss? Albert Pujols? Likely a lot less fuss as well... its due to his personality and his personal beef with the media. There's no hypocrisy to it, its just common sense.

The players can only build themselves up to the general public through the media. If you alienate and upset the media, why on Earth are they going to write a positive column for you? Why would anyone in the media want to write a positive thing about Bonds when he has been so unkind towards them in the past? They owe him nothing, just like he owed them nothing. Now there's a situation where Bonds needs them... and they aren't helping him. I guess "what goes around, comes around" and "karma's a " are more fitting quotes...

And if you'd bet your life on something as completely and totally unfounded as Aaron taking steroids.... man, I hope youre right then There's no evidence of Aaron taking steroids... there is evidence of Bonds taking them though, so I dont really see the hypocrisy there.

[backer55]

510, you ever read this long winded trash your writing. Retoric, bla-bla-bla. I know what and who i am. I'm tring to defend a man that may be innocent. You, i could care less...your a jerk... and the horse you rode in on.

edney, my appoligies for junking up your post. The link you provided at the top is a great sourse for thought and comment. i hope others will share their thoughts on the subject.

[FNQ]

510, you ever read this long winded trash your writing. Retoric, bla-bla-bla. I know what and who i am. I'm tring to defend a man that may be innocent. You, i could care less...your a jerk... and the horse you rode in on.

edney, my appoligies for junking up your post. The link you provided at the top is a great sourse for thought and comment. i hope others will share their thoughts on the subject.

Defend him from what? Public criticism, even light-hearted? Or what about common sense, is that what your defending him from?

"He may be innocent"... No, he really isn't. He admitted using clear and cream, which makes him NOT INNOCENT! The point of this thread was to show the hypocrisy in the media about ignoring Henry Aaron's possible usage of steroids (and his defenite use of greenies) while attacking Bonds'.

Instead, you made it a personal attack on me, for poking fun at Bonds (lightly) in a game thread, and then offering a legitimate opinion that its his own fault that the media is running with this. Apparently that is enough to be considered a jerk, a guy running a lynch mob, hating on Bonds, spreading lies, and unsubstantiated rumors. You are really overreacting and acting ridiculous. Try instead, clearing your head, and re-reading this thread in its entirety. If you still feel angry, I'd suggest not leaving the Giants board, as someone anti-Bonds might send you into a spiral of binge drinking and calling people jerks.

I hope that as your progress here at RealGM, you realize how foolish you were in this thread.

There's an ignore button at the bottom of each post I've made. I suggest you click it on my posts, as you seem to fear any opinion that is different to yours. I'm going to use mine now, so I don't get bogged down in ignorant arguments about things like this. If you (in my opinion) come to your senses about this whole thing, feel free to PM me.(also at the bottom)

I have zero problem with someone defending Bonds... but do it correctly. I actually like Bonds and dont think he deserves the asterik. But, it's much easier to skim a thread instead of read the entire thing, no?

[edney2polynice_]

-= original quote snipped =-



He sure was, thus my "you made your bed, lie in it" quote. I mean... take Sean Casey. Lets say he gets nailed for steroids, is there this big a fuss? Albert Pujols? Likely a lot less fuss as well... its due to his personality and his personal beef with the media. There's no hypocrisy to it, its just common sense.

The hypocrisy I'm referring to is that of people who don't want Bonds to break Aaron's hallowed record because of his alleged steroids use, while ignoring the Aaron's use of "greenies" to obtain the record in the first place.

And if you'd bet your life on something as completely and totally unfounded as Aaron taking steroids.... man, I hope youre right then There's no evidence of Aaron taking steroids... there is evidence of Bonds taking them though, so I dont really see the hypocrisy there.

I said if I had to bet my life on it.

And there is no evidence that Bonds took steroids. I still believe he took them, but to say there is evidence is misleading. I hope you're not basing your statement on the "facts" that were written in the 'game of shadows' -- the same book that was denied entrance into consideration for the Pulitzer Committee due to its lack of reliably-sourced material and its use of second and third-hand innuendo as "fact".

[Ex-hippie]

And there is no evidence that Bonds took steroids. I still believe he took them, but to say there is evidence is misleading. I hope you're not basing your statement on the "facts" that were written in the 'game of shadows' -- the same book that was denied entrance into consideration for the Pulitzer Committee due to its lack of reliably-sourced material and its use of second and third-hand innuendo as "fact".

Untrue. There was plenty of reliably-sourced material, including grand jury testimony, but some have criticized the book for mixing in bad evidence with good evidence. But that doesn't mean the good evidence doesn't exist. To borrow your phrase: to say there is no evidence is not just misleading, it's flat-out wrong.

[FNQ]

-= original quote snipped =-



I said if I had to bet my life on it.

And there is no evidence that Bonds took steroids. I still believe he took them, but to say there is evidence is misleading. I hope you're not basing your statement on the "facts" that were written in the 'game of shadows' -- the same book that was denied entrance into consideration for the Pulitzer Committee due to its lack of reliably-sourced material and its use of second and third-hand innuendo as "fact".

I don't get it.... you said its hypocrisy, to me it just seems like common sense. People don't want Bonds to break the record because he's been labeled (and really is) a jerk by the media, whom he alienated. Again, why on Earth would these people want him to break the record? Why would any writer outside of SF, some in SF, want to write something positive about Bonds? Not hypocrisy, common sense. There's a reason Barry Bonds isn't a marketable name anymore , and why all this is going on. And that's Barry's fault.

As far as evidence goes, I didn't cite the book, to be honest, I've only read excerpts of it and I dont take any of it as fact. All I base Bonds' use on is his testimony, to which he used clear and cream. That is evidence, hell that essentially a confession. But yadda yadda loophole, blame Anderson for not telling him, all that stuff (a nice legal move by Bonds' camp) has kept this delayed...

[edney2polynice_]

And there is no evidence that Bonds took steroids. I still believe he took them, but to say there is evidence is misleading. I hope you're not basing your statement on the "facts" that were written in the 'game of shadows' -- the same book that was denied entrance into consideration for the Pulitzer Committee due to its lack of reliably-sourced material and its use of second and third-hand innuendo as "fact".

Untrue. There was plenty of reliably-sourced material, including grand jury testimony, but some have criticized the book for mixing in bad evidence with good evidence. But that doesn't mean the good evidence doesn't exist. To borrow your phrase: to say there is no evidence is not just misleading, it's flat-out wrong.

If there was any evidence at all, we all know that Bonds' would have gone down along time ago. All we have is speculations, hear-say, assumptions, opinions -- but no evidence that proves Bonds took steroids. But since I'm "flat-out wrong", please do tell me of this evidence you speak of.

[Ex-hippie]

-= original quote snipped =-
If there was any evidence at all, we all know that Bonds' would have gone down along time ago. All we have is speculations, hear-say, assumptions, opinions -- but no evidence that proves Bonds took steroids. But since I'm "flat-out wrong", please do tell me of this evidence you speak of.

Last I checked (and as I discussed earlier in this thread), the standard for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." I'm not sure what country you live in, but in this country, it's certainly not "any evidence at all."