The Baseball Thread 2007

[Guy Berger]

Yeah, he used steroids. I just don't see why it's a big deal.

Guy

[Dan Gould]

This certainly is an amazing, surprising game, isn't it?

Karstens starts because Igawa was so awful. Karstens gets drilled on the knee off the very first pitch ... and Igawa comes in and throws six innings of 2 hit ball. Unfucking believable. And it simply amazed me that Torre said when he announced that Igawa was going to the pen that he was "missing his spots by a foot or more" ....

and Igawa continued to miss his spots by a foot or more!. How many times did Posada put the glove one place and then reach a foot or more to catch it? And yet we couldn't do shit against him.

And what absolutely sucks about this isn't just that Tavarez pitches tomorrow against Wang. Its the fact that this could have been a season-changer for the Yankees. Not that 7 1/2 games is insurmountable - but it would have put them perhaps one game or less closer to a Steinbrenner eruption. We could have gotten Torre off of that team and put them into utter chaos.

Now we're left hoping that somehow Tavarez can turn the baseball world upside down like Igawa did and beat the Yankees.

I'm not even going to listen on MLB radio.

[Tim McG]

Whoa big fella.

Your opinion does not equal incontrovertable fact, Dan, any more than mine does. But it's going to take a lot more than comparing muscle mass to a skinny rookie in a Pirates uniform.

You want to disagree, that's fine...but because you see limited and hearsay evidence as fact is a clear indication we need to define terms. Hearsay is not evidence. Guilt by association is not evidence. A new hat size is not evidence. It is supposition. That and 50 cents gets you the morning paper.

Until there is incontrovertable evidence, IMHO, there is no case here. Game of Shadows is a shameless kiss-and-tell book without a shread of hard evidence. Ex-girlfriends and "he said she said" isn't evidence either, Dan. BTW, have you forgotten the legal trouble those guys encountered for printing Grand Jury testimony, hm...? Slipshod reporting shored up with illegally obtained GJ tesimony is not something which inspires trust, my misguided friend.

That's a joke, right? Doping schedules with the initials of all of his other clients, PLUS "BB" is "hearsay"?

GRAND JURY TESTIMONY is "hearsay"?

And how dare you use the so-called "illegally obtained" Grand Jury testimony. IT IS LEGITIMATE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. How it was obtained has nothing to do with its accuracy. HELL, the chief co-conspirator is the one who gave it to them! but the simple fact is that the book isn't close to "slipshod reporting" - it is recognized by everyone else as so solidly sourced as to utterly destroy the credibility of Bonds and his rapidly decreasing corp of defenders.

The fact that you remain one is staggering.

Besides, I have always maintained that if Bonds did use steroids, I'd be the first to admit it.

Really? Seriously? Then how come overwhelming evidence that has led dozens of national sportswriters and millions of baseball fans to conclude that he used steroids, and you aren't admitting it?

How come?

Its painfully obvious you choose not to see that which you do not wish to.

I'd tell you I admire you for standing by your man but since it defies all standards of intelligence ...

Doping schedules....as witnessed by whom, Dan? His ex-girlfriend? Somebody who talked to a guy who was told somebody saw these schedules?

Where are these so-called doping schedules now, Dan?

Hearsay tesimony is not fact, no matter how much you want it to be. And thank God, too. My ex-wife would rat my ass off in a heartbeat just to jack me up. Does this mean what she says is to be taken as literal fact just because she says so or some repor might say so? Geez, Dan....and you're the first in line to bitch about the so-called Liberal media this and the Liberal media that. But you'll listen to them when it serves your own personal take on an issue, now, won't you.

And let's examine the reporters' credibility for just a minute, shall we? They are both employed by the Hearst Newspaper Corp.....the biggest purveyor of yellow journalism this side of Ruppert Murdoch. What does that tell you, Dan? And you're going to hang your own sagging credibility on that? Really?

I never said GJ testimony is hearsay. But, as is so very sadly typical of the close minded conservative hell bent for dirt, you conveniently overlooked that, didn't you.

What did say is those reporters were nearly arrested and thrown in jail for publishing seal GJ testimony that they had obtained through nefarious means and their souce got it illegally. That's no better than causing a auto accident then claiming it wasn't your fault because your vehicle wasn't hit. Total bullshit, Dan.

You see? This is why I don't like debating with you because the whole deal is all about you and your continuous back peddling to cover for pseudo evidence and a biasedly narrow mindset involving pure speculation and conjecture. "What are we to believe" is a total bullshit argument, too, Dan.

But I guess folks like you who must resort to name calling and bullying to fluff up their sadly lacking credibility on pretty much any issue...it is to be expected.

I think we're done here.

Again, Peace to you.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Yeah, he used steroids. I just don't see why it's a big deal.

Guy

Exactly.

I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that 2/3's of the league and a fair number of current Hall of Fame inductees were on the Juice in one form or another. Why do they all get a free pass? The stuff has been around since the early 60s.

Besides, I would like someone here [besides Dan] to give me real and qualifiable proof that steroids increase vision and timing; both essential in hitting homeruns.

Steroids make you big, not an HR hitter. Because if this were the case, Jose CanStrikeOut would own the HR record.

Guess what...he doesn't.

What a shocker.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Matthew]

Steroids can make a hitter better by adding ten feet to a fly ball, when that happens, then you have a home run hitter. That's really all it takes to change a twenty homer player to a forty homer guy, I mean, my gosh, look at what happened to Brady Anderson for heaven sake! Or did those fifty homers come off pure ability? That's what players were really looking for, that extra ten to fifteen feet, and that could be worth a couple of million extra a year.

[Tim McG]

Steroids can make a hitter better by adding ten feet to a fly ball, when that happens, then you have a home run hitter. That's really all it takes to change a twenty homer player to a forty homer guy, I mean, my gosh, look at what happened to Brady Anderson for heaven sake! Or did those fifty homers come off pure ability? That's what players were really looking for, that extra ten to fifteen feet, and that could be worth a couple of million extra a year.

Hm.

A ball ten feet farther foul or in the dirt or deeper in the outfield isn't a HR.

Again, how do you explain Jose CanStrikeOut if this is the case?

Vision, timing and a gift for seeing the ball makes you a HR hitter. Nothing else.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Matthew]

But a fair ball that would have landed on the warning track, with that fifteen extra feet, is a home run. I'm not here to jump on BB, he's a great player, and I doubt that he is a long time user of steroids because it's been proven over time that the body breaks down with repeated, long term steroid use, eg. Albert Belle. I just don't agree if your point is that steroid use cannot create home runs, in the "steroid era" we saw plenty of players who had a great couple of years and then broke down. Steroids does not increase hand-to-eye coordination, but it does add distance, which is the key to its use in baseball. Bonds, OTOH, has sustained his greatness over his whole career, so even if(??) he used, at most, it would only be for a year or two, but whether he did or not, who knows -- Bonds denies it, he's never tested positive, so what can anyone do in that case? He's one of the best players ever, and maybe the best hitter of all-time, maybe just leave it at that.

[Dan Gould]

Whoa big fella.

Your opinion does not equal incontrovertable fact, Dan, any more than mine does. But it's going to take a lot more than comparing muscle mass to a skinny rookie in a Pirates uniform.

You want to disagree, that's fine...but because you see limited and hearsay evidence as fact is a clear indication we need to define terms. Hearsay is not evidence. Guilt by association is not evidence. A new hat size is not evidence. It is supposition. That and 50 cents gets you the morning paper.

Until there is incontrovertable evidence, IMHO, there is no case here. Game of Shadows is a shameless kiss-and-tell book without a shread of hard evidence. Ex-girlfriends and "he said she said" isn't evidence either, Dan. BTW, have you forgotten the legal trouble those guys encountered for printing Grand Jury testimony, hm...? Slipshod reporting shored up with illegally obtained GJ tesimony is not something which inspires trust, my misguided friend.

That's a joke, right? Doping schedules with the initials of all of his other clients, PLUS "BB" is "hearsay"?

GRAND JURY TESTIMONY is "hearsay"?

And how dare you use the so-called "illegally obtained" Grand Jury testimony. IT IS LEGITIMATE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. How it was obtained has nothing to do with its accuracy. HELL, the chief co-conspirator is the one who gave it to them! but the simple fact is that the book isn't close to "slipshod reporting" - it is recognized by everyone else as so solidly sourced as to utterly destroy the credibility of Bonds and his rapidly decreasing corp of defenders.

The fact that you remain one is staggering.

Besides, I have always maintained that if Bonds did use steroids, I'd be the first to admit it.

Really? Seriously? Then how come overwhelming evidence that has led dozens of national sportswriters and millions of baseball fans to conclude that he used steroids, and you aren't admitting it?

How come?

Its painfully obvious you choose not to see that which you do not wish to.

I'd tell you I admire you for standing by your man but since it defies all standards of intelligence ...

Doping schedules....as witnessed by whom, Dan? His ex-girlfriend? Somebody who talked to a guy who was told somebody saw these schedules?

Where are these so-called doping schedules now, Dan?

IN THE HANDS OF THE PROSECUTORS. THEY WERE CREATED BY HIS "TRAINER" AND SEIZED IN THE RAIDS. THEY DETAILED THE VERIFIED DRUG USE OF OTHER CLIENTS. THEY DETAIL THE DRUG USE OF BARRY BONDS AS WELL AS HIS ARTIFICIALLY ELEVATED TESTOSTERONE AND OTHER INDICATORS OF STEROID USE.

Hearsay tesimony is not fact, no matter how much you want it to be.

THIS IS NOT HEARSAY.

JUST AS IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN BARRY BONDS SAYS HE RECEIVED AND USED A CLEAR SUBSTANCE AND A CREAM SUBSTANCE. HE IS STATING THAT HE USED STEROIDS. HE SAID IT HIMSELF.

HIS DEFENSE IS THAT HE DIDN'T "KNOW".

NO ONE WITH A BRAIN BELIEVES HIM AND IN ANY EVENT, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

IT VIOLATED THE LAW. IT VIOLATED THE RULES OF THE GAME.

And let's examine the reporters' credibility for just a minute, shall we? They are both employed by the Hearst Newspaper Corp.....the biggest purveyor of yellow journalism this side of Ruppert Murdoch.

HOW PATHETIC THAT YOU WANT TO BESMIRCH THEIR RESEARCH, THEIR SOURCES, THEIR PROOF

BECAUSE THE COMPANY THEY WRITE FOR DOESN'T MEET YOUR STANDARDS.

THAT IS BEYOND PATHETIC.

What did say is those reporters were nearly arrested and thrown in jail for publishing seal GJ testimony that they had obtained through nefarious means and their souce got it illegally. That's no better than causing a auto accident then claiming it wasn't your fault because your vehicle wasn't hit. Total bullshit, Dan.

WHICH AGAIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS THEY REPORTED. THE FACTS ARE IRREFUTABLE. THE EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE. THE FACTS ARE NOT EFFECTED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM BY HOW THEY WERE OBTAINED.

You see? This is why I don't like debating with you because the whole deal is all about you and your continuous back peddling to cover for pseudo evidence and a biasedly narrow mindset involving pure speculation and conjecture. "What are we to believe" is a total bullshit argument, too, Dan.

YOUR CALLING IT "PSEUDO EVIDENCE" AND "PURE SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE" TELLS EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR ABILITY TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE AT HAND.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Dan Gould

[Quincy]

Yeah, he used steroids. I just don't see why it's a big deal.

Guy

Because to be competitive in major league baseball shouldn't mean one has to risk enlarged breasts, anger issues, shrunken nuts, liver cancer, etc. to keep up with the Joneses. Not that Andruw or Chipper are doping...

[Tim McG]

But a fair ball that would have landed on the warning track, with that fifteen extra feet, is a home run. I'm not here to jump on BB, he's a great player, and I doubt that he is a long time user of steroids because it's been proven over time that the body breaks down with repeated, long term steroid use, eg. Albert Belle. I just don't agree if your point is that steroid use cannot create home runs, in the "steroid era" we saw plenty of players who had a great couple of years and then broke down. Steroids does not increase hand-to-eye coordination, but it does add distance, which is the key to its use in baseball. Bonds, OTOH, has sustained his greatness over his whole career, so even if(??) he used, at most, it would only be for a year or two, but whether he did or not, who knows -- Bonds denies it, he's never tested positive, so what can anyone do in that case? He's one of the best players ever, and maybe the best hitter of all-time, maybe just leave it at that.

OK.

And how often does this happen?

Once, twice maybe three times in a player's life?

You're pleading the case of the defense here, Matthew: Steriods do not increase the likelihood of a player hitting a HR. Vision and timing do. Period. There can be no question on this one.

So I fail to see the issue here.

Bonds using steriods now becomes a White man's justification that Ruth was second only to a "lucky" Black man in Hank Aaron. Can't you see why the media is so concerned about this?

Even George "failed Iraq policy" Bush is on this one with getting the Feds involved. Any person with half a brain should ask why steroids in baseball are subject to a Federal investgation. It's a freakin' GAME, fer crissakes, not the answer to terroism.

This is not at all about steriods [for the which they have no proof] it is all about another Black man beating Babe Ruth's record and, most importantly, the media jackals of the sporting press' effort to discredit Bonds in a shameless get-back for telling them to take a flying leap.

It is total bullshit.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

But a fair ball that would have landed on the warning track, with that fifteen extra feet, is a home run. I'm not here to jump on BB, he's a great player, and I doubt that he is a long time user of steroids because it's been proven over time that the body breaks down with repeated, long term steroid use, eg. Albert Belle. I just don't agree if your point is that steroid use cannot create home runs, in the "steroid era" we saw plenty of players who had a great couple of years and then broke down. Steroids does not increase hand-to-eye coordination, but it does add distance, which is the key to its use in baseball. Bonds, OTOH, has sustained his greatness over his whole career, so even if(??) he used, at most, it would only be for a year or two, but whether he did or not, who knows -- Bonds denies it, he's never tested positive, so what can anyone do in that case? He's one of the best players ever, and maybe the best hitter of all-time, maybe just leave it at that.

OK.

And how often does this happen?

Once, twice maybe three times in a player's life?

You're pleading the case of the defense here, Matthew: Steriods do not increase the likelihood of a player hitting a HR. Vision and timing do. Period. there can be no question on this one.

So I fail to see the issue here.

Bonds using steriods now becomes a White man's justification that Ruth was second only to a "lucky" Black man in Hank Aaron. can't you see why the media is so concerned about this?

Even George "failed Iraq policy" Bush is on this one with getting the Feds involved.

This is not at all about steriods [for the which they have no proof] it is all about another Black man beating Babe Ruth's record and, most importantly, the media jackals of the sporting press' effort to discredit Bonds in a shameless get-back for telling them to take a flying leap.

It is total bullshit.

You are beyond help.

You need, desperately need professional help.

[Quincy]

Of course there's a blog devoted to the subject.

Baseball's Steroid Era

[Tim McG]

Dan...we are done here.

As much as you may piss and moan, I am not responding to emotional bullshit.

I stand for facts, not hearsay.

Your agenda dictates otherwise.

Peace to you.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[zen archer]

This certainly is an amazing, surprising game, isn't it?

Karstens starts because Igawa was so awful. Karstens gets drilled on the knee off the very first pitch ... and Igawa comes in and throws six innings of 2 hit ball. Unfucking believable. And it simply amazed me that Torre said when he announced that Igawa was going to the pen that he was "missing his spots by a foot or more" ....

and Igawa continued to miss his spots by a foot or more!. How many times did Posada put the glove one place and then reach a foot or more to catch it? And yet we couldn't do shit against him.

And what absolutely sucks about this isn't just that Tavarez pitches tomorrow against Wang. Its the fact that this could have been a season-changer for the Yankees. Not that 7 1/2 games is insurmountable - but it would have put them perhaps one game or less closer to a Steinbrenner eruption. We could have gotten Torre off of that team and put them into utter chaos.

Now we're left hoping that somehow Tavarez can turn the baseball world upside down like Igawa did and beat the Yankees.

I'm not even going to listen on MLB radio.

I don't think one win is a season changer the yankees have DEEP problems with pitching and one game doesn't change that .....i guess Torre doesn't like Igawa but he really doesn't have any choice . What ever happened to Pavano ?

[Matthew]

But a fair ball that would have landed on the warning track, with that fifteen extra feet, is a home run. I'm not here to jump on BB, he's a great player, and I doubt that he is a long time user of steroids because it's been proven over time that the body breaks down with repeated, long term steroid use, eg. Albert Belle. I just don't agree if your point is that steroid use cannot create home runs, in the "steroid era" we saw plenty of players who had a great couple of years and then broke down. Steroids does not increase hand-to-eye coordination, but it does add distance, which is the key to its use in baseball. Bonds, OTOH, has sustained his greatness over his whole career, so even if(??) he used, at most, it would only be for a year or two, but whether he did or not, who knows -- Bonds denies it, he's never tested positive, so what can anyone do in that case? He's one of the best players ever, and maybe the best hitter of all-time, maybe just leave it at that.

OK.

And how often does this happen?

Once, twice maybe three times in a player's life?

You're pleading the case of the defense here, Matthew: Steriods do not increase the likelihood of a player hitting a HR. Vision and timing do. Period. There can be no question on this one.

So I fail to see the issue here.

Bonds using steriods now becomes a White man's justification that Ruth was second only to a "lucky" Black man in Hank Aaron. Can't you see why the media is so concerned about this?

Even George "failed Iraq policy" Bush is on this one with getting the Feds involved. Any person with half a brain should ask why steroids in baseball are subject to a Federal investgation. It's a freakin' GAME, fer crissakes, not the answer to terroism.

This is not at all about steriods [for the which they have no proof] it is all about another Black man beating Babe Ruth's record and, most importantly, the media jackals of the sporting press' effort to discredit Bonds in a shameless get-back for telling them to take a flying leap.

It is total bullshit.

There seems to be a couple of different issues here, let me comment on some:

1. Are you saying that a player only hits a fly ball to the warning track two or three times in his life? Jeesh, Adrian Beltre goes to the warning track two or three times a week, and I know that because Mariner fans have to watch that week after week. So, I disagree if that's what you're saying, I'm sure some stat geek out there is keeping track of "almost home runs."

2. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether steroids creates home runs or not. You don't think so, I do, and I don't think either one of us will change our minds on that one.

3. Bonds and his treatment during his run up at Aaron's record is complex and crazy at the same time. Now I remember clearly Aaron's treatment during his chase of Ruth's record, and he garnered great respect from most people over the way he handled himself. Of course, it's well documented that he did suffer from racist taunts and letters, but he was respected in and out of baseball. Bonds is different, and it's true that most of the media treats him with disdain. There is an element of racism to it all, but there is also the feeling that Bonds is a jerk, and a lot of people don't care for him in the least. Of course, whether he's a jerk or not, I have no idea at all, so I can't comment on that at all. It's interesting to see how the media handles Bonds, I've lived in the Bay Area for a while, and go there on my vacation all the time, and the picture in the SF/Oakland papers of Bonds is different, and much more positive than anywhere else in the country, like L.A for example. Maybe the dislike for Bonds is partially to explain why, all of a sudden, there is a lot of talk of ARod beating his record later on in his career. The baseball establishment would certainly prefer ARod as the all-time home run king than Bonds, more cuddly than Bonds, that's for sure. It all causes me to wonder about the real reason why Aaron won't be there when Bonds breaks the record, and how that achievement will be celebrate in the stadium when it happens. One thing about Bonds: He's never dull.

[Tim McG]

But a fair ball that would have landed on the warning track, with that fifteen extra feet, is a home run. I'm not here to jump on BB, he's a great player, and I doubt that he is a long time user of steroids because it's been proven over time that the body breaks down with repeated, long term steroid use, eg. Albert Belle. I just don't agree if your point is that steroid use cannot create home runs, in the "steroid era" we saw plenty of players who had a great couple of years and then broke down. Steroids does not increase hand-to-eye coordination, but it does add distance, which is the key to its use in baseball. Bonds, OTOH, has sustained his greatness over his whole career, so even if(??) he used, at most, it would only be for a year or two, but whether he did or not, who knows -- Bonds denies it, he's never tested positive, so what can anyone do in that case? He's one of the best players ever, and maybe the best hitter of all-time, maybe just leave it at that.

OK.

And how often does this happen?

Once, twice maybe three times in a player's life?

You're pleading the case of the defense here, Matthew: Steriods do not increase the likelihood of a player hitting a HR. Vision and timing do. Period. There can be no question on this one.

So I fail to see the issue here.

Bonds using steriods now becomes a White man's justification that Ruth was second only to a "lucky" Black man in Hank Aaron. Can't you see why the media is so concerned about this?

Even George "failed Iraq policy" Bush is on this one with getting the Feds involved. Any person with half a brain should ask why steroids in baseball are subject to a Federal investgation. It's a freakin' GAME, fer crissakes, not the answer to terroism.

This is not at all about steriods [for the which they have no proof] it is all about another Black man beating Babe Ruth's record and, most importantly, the media jackals of the sporting press' effort to discredit Bonds in a shameless get-back for telling them to take a flying leap.

It is total bullshit.

There seems to be a couple of different issues here, let me comment on some:

1. Are you saying that a player only hits a fly ball to the warning track two or three times in his life? Jeesh, Adrian Beltre goes to the warning track two or three times a week, and I know that because Mariner fans have to watch that week after week. So, I disagree if that's what you're saying, I'm sure some stat geek out there is keeping track of "almost home runs."

2. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether steroids creates home runs or not. You don't think so, I do, and I don't think either one of us will change our minds on that one.

3. Bonds and his treatment during his run up at Aaron's record is complex and crazy at the same time. Now I remember clearly Aaron's treatment during his chase of Ruth's record, and he garnered great respect from most people over the way he handled himself. Of course, it's well documented that he did suffer from racist taunts and letters, but he was respected in and out of baseball. Bonds is different, and it's true that most of the media treats him with disdain. There is an element of racism to it all, but there is also the feeling that Bonds is a jerk, and a lot of people don't care for him in the least. Of course, whether he's a jerk or not, I have no idea at all, so I can't comment on that at all. It's interesting to see how the media handles Bonds, I've lived in the Bay Area for a while, and go there on my vacation all the time, and the picture in the SF/Oakland papers of Bonds is different, and much more positive than anywhere else in the country, like L.A for example. Maybe the dislike for Bonds is partially to explain why, all of a sudden, there is a lot of talk of ARod beating his record later on in his career. The baseball establishment would certainly prefer ARod as the all-time home run king than Bonds, more cuddly than Bonds, that's for sure. It all causes me to wonder about the real reason why Aaron won't be there when Bonds breaks the record, and how that achievement will be celebrate in the stadium when it happens. One thing about Bonds: He's never dull.

OK...here we go [ready?]:

#1 I'm saying that ten feet or a hundred feet, steroids do not make you a HR hitter. There are far more athletic factors involved.

#2 Disagree all you want to, but steroids do not increase vision nor do they make you a better hitter. SHOW me [please?] the proof to the contrary.

#3 your point...?

This is so typical of the person who believes, and only upon face value, that the media is telling the truth about Bonds. And tabloids are telling the truth, too...eh?

The "reporters" who cover baseball are charlatans. They care more for their damaged egos when Bonds tells them to f**k off when they want an interview, than they care about telling the truth.

The sporting media is full of selfish jackals hell bent for some get-back on Bonds.

Tell me it isn't so...go ahead, tell me.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

[Tim McG]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

Huh?

I'm saying steroids don't increase vision. Or talent, or skill.

They increase muscle mass. Period.

Steroids do not make you see the ball better or make you a HR hitter.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Guy Berger]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

Huh?

I'm saying steroids don't increase vision. Or talent, or skill.

They increase muscle mass. Period.

Steroids do not make you see the ball better.

Sorry dude, you are DEFINITELY on the losing side in this argument.

Bonds's performance has almost surely improved due to steroid use.

Guy

[Guy Berger]

Yeah, he used steroids. I just don't see why it's a big deal.

Guy

Because to be competitive in major league baseball shouldn't mean one has to risk enlarged breasts, anger issues, shrunken nuts, liver cancer, etc. to keep up with the Joneses. Not that Andruw or Chipper are doping...

Well, it's Bonds's own business if he wants to risk those things.

He'll have a big record to show for it.

Guy

[J Larsen]

If you were taking an exam where only the top x students would pass (by design) and half the people in the room were cheating, wouldn't you care?

[Guy Berger]

If you were taking an exam where only the top x students would pass (by design) and half the people in the room were cheating, wouldn't you care?

Yeah, but I'm not.

Guy

[J Larsen]

If you were taking an exam where only the top x students would pass (by design) and half the people in the room were cheating, wouldn't you care?

Yeah, but I'm not.

Guy

Regardless of whether you are or not, I think this is inconsistent with your position that it is Bonds' (or anyone else's) sole business whether they want to risk the consequences of steriods, greenies or whatever else they are using. There are only so many major league roster spots, after all (1200?) and even fewer starting jobs.

[Guy Berger]

If you were taking an exam where only the top x students would pass (by design) and half the people in the room were cheating, wouldn't you care?

Yeah, but I'm not.

Guy

Regardless of whether you are or not, I think this is inconsistent with your position that it is Bonds' (or anyone else's) sole business whether they want to risk the consequences of steriods, greenies or whatever else they are using. There are only so many major league roster spots, after all (1200?) and even fewer starting jobs.

No, I meant that all those health risks were Bonds's sole business.

Guy

[J Larsen]

If you were taking an exam where only the top x students would pass (by design) and half the people in the room were cheating, wouldn't you care?

Yeah, but I'm not.

Guy

Regardless of whether you are or not, I think this is inconsistent with your position that it is Bonds' (or anyone else's) sole business whether they want to risk the consequences of steriods, greenies or whatever else they are using. There are only so many major league roster spots, after all (1200?) and even fewer starting jobs.

No, I meant that all those health risks were Bonds's sole business.

Guy

Not the way I see it. Once you have one user, there is pressure on all others to use in order to keep up.

Frankly, I'm really not all that interested in sports anymore and this issue concerns me only slightly more than static cling, but I do believe that steroid usage on anybody's part is unfair to all the players. I would not feel this way if there were no ill health effects.