Baseball Steroid Thread

[papsrus]

An indictment just before Bonds kangaroo trail proves nothing except the government has no case. This is just total nonsense and a waste of taxpayer money.

What I am so obviously saying is the Feds called for a delay in the Bonds trial then indicted Clemens.

I see. I wouldn't have edited out the essence of your argument had I realized that, "An indictment just before Bonds kangaroo trial. ..." obviously meant "the Feds called for a delay in the Bonds trial. ...."

I honestly would never have guessed that's what you obviously meant. But regardless, whatever you imagine their motivations to be, an indictment of one person does not "prove" anything, let alone the merits of a separate case.

Juries are people and as such they are affected by the outcome due to similar circumstances which might persuade them to vote for guilt in the Bonds case where the Feds have no evidence.

So the feds want to convict Clemens first, in order to prime the Bonds jury? (Don't want to misread you. By "outcome" you do mean 'verdict,' yes?) But is Clemens going to trial before Bonds?

I honestly don't know the answer, but I don't believe a trial date has been set for Clemens yet, has it? The assumption built into your statement above (that a Clemens conviction would influence a Bonds jury, if that's what you're trying to say) would seem to depend on Clemens being tried (and convicted) first.

As to any games being taken back, that's not the point here. Bonds' HR breaking baseball was asterisked and the hue and cry was to asterisk anything he ever did. My point was if people are so pissed about Bonds' HR record, then why aren't they calling for the same kinds of humiliation for Clemens or McGuire or whomever?

Bottom line: Race. A Black man had the temerity to beat a White drunkard. Period.

Get it now, Danny?

I'm not Danny. I guess we need to start with the basics.

And Clemens appears to be just another asshole who thinks the rules don't apply.

Hope that helps.

Edited August 23, 2010 by papsrus

[Tim McG]

An indictment just before Bonds kangaroo trail proves nothing except the government has no case. This is just total nonsense and a waste of taxpayer money.

What I am so obviously saying is the Feds called for a delay in the Bonds trial then indicted Clemens.

I see. I wouldn't have edited out the essence of your argument had I realized that, "An indictment just before Bonds kangaroo trial. ..." obviously meant "the Feds called for a delay in the Bonds trial. ...."

I honestly would never have guessed that's what you obviously meant. But regardless, whatever you imagine their motivations to be, an indictment of one person does not "prove" anything, let alone the merits of a separate case.

Juries are people and as such they are affected by the outcome due to similar circumstances which might persuade them to vote for guilt in the Bonds case where the Feds have no evidence.

So the feds want to convict Clemens first, in order to prime the Bonds jury? (Don't want to misread you. By "outcome" you do mean 'verdict,' yes?) But is Clemens going to trial before Bonds?

I honestly don't know the answer, but I don't believe a trial date has been set for Clemens yet, has it? The assumption built into your statement above (that a Clemens conviction would influence a Bonds jury, if that's what you're trying to say) would seem to depend on Clemens being tried (and convicted) first.

As to any games being taken back, that's not the point here. Bonds' HR breaking baseball was asterisked and the hue and cry was to asterisk anything he ever did. My point was if people are so pissed about Bonds' HR record, then why aren't they calling for the same kinds of humiliation for Clemens or McGuire or whomever?

Bottom line: Race. A Black man had the temerity to beat a White drunkard. Period.

Get it now, Danny?

I'm not Danny. I guess we need to start with the basics.

And Clemens appears to be just another asshole who thinks the rules don't apply.

Hope that helps.

Oh c'mon, Papsrus.

You are making something out of nothing here and you know it.

Of course you aren't Danny, but he reads this stuff too, OK?

And do you seriously believe the Feds are above trying to manipulate the trial of their biggest fish in Bonds [one they have to justify wasting millions of taxpayer dollars] by trying/indicting Clemens first? So the Jackie Joyner conviction taught you nothing along those lines? Of course they are trying to prime the pump. How else can they try to convict Bonds with the flimsy hearsay evidence they do have?

A set Clemens trial date isn't the point. A conviction of Bonds is. Do you seriously want us to believe that the Feds think Clemens is the real target here in this sham steroids bullshit? Honestly? They just want to poison the well, so to speak, of potential jurors.

I sincerely hope this whole thing just blows up in the Feds faces. Such a big thing over a kids game. Geez.

Where were those same Feds when Linda Tripp lied to Congress? Then Ollie North before her?

They got off scot free, but baseball players are more sinister? Please. This is a joke investigation started by Bush II and his bully boys and you know it.

Edited August 23, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Wow. Just wow.

You're so far off your nut that in a different era, you'd be committed to a psycho ward. And I mean that seriously. Its just bat-fucking insane what you've written here.

[papsrus]

Oh c'mon, Papsrus.

You are making something out of nothing here and you know it.

No, no. I'm just trying to find my way through your reasoning, that's all. You don't have to oblige, but if you just throw around conspiracy theories, that's exactly what it's going to sound like.

For example (and this is pretty straight forward), your 'poisoning the Bonds jury' argument depends on Clemens being tried and convicted before Bonds. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

And this doesn't even address whether there is any basis for believing that to begin with.

[Chalupa]

So Jose Bautista is leading the majors this season with 38 home runs. He's on pace to smack 50. In his previous 7 seasons his career total was 59. How does a player nearly match his previous homer output for 7 years in just one season??? Hmmm....

[Dan Gould]

His 518 PAs this season is already 20% of his career PAs, and you can expect him to add nearly 200 more. Between that and the fact that Toronto as a team has taken the approach of swinging for the fences (how else did Alex Gonzales hit 17 homers before he got traded?) its not really that surprising.

[Chalupa]

Jesus H. Christ I see that he hit 2 more homers tonight giving him 40 on the season

I heard that "swinging for the fences" explanation too and it probably does account for some of the HRs but if he truly is swinging for the fences wouldn't his batting avg. be going down?? It's 20 points higher this year. Also isn't there usually a strong bump up in strike outs when a hitter swings for the fences? That hasn't happened either. And in 2007 he had 614 PAs. Know how many HRs he hit that season?? 4. So he's hit 10 x that amount this season w/100 less PAs. WTF?

It is amazing though that the Blue Jays are hitting so many home runs this season. They lead the majors by 20 HRs over the next team. They've hit 38 more than the Yanks and 67 more than the Phillies - both teams that play in bandboxes and that are loaded w/ guys who swing for the fences.

It's been a weird season.

[Tim McG]

Wow. Just wow.

You're so far off your nut that in a different era, you'd be committed to a psycho ward. And I mean that seriously. Its just bat-fucking insane what you've written here.

This from the man with bat shit for brains who thinks there is a love tryst between Bonds and Clemens.

Pssh.

Don't waste my time, Danny.

[Dan Gould]

Can't be surprised that between my sloppy writing and your sub-moronic intelligence that you'd draw that conclusion.

For the record, my post above comparing Bonds to Clemens had a missing subject: Their respective trainers.

The only difference between Bonds and Clemens is that Bonds either made a deal with (Gregg Anderson) to keep his mouth shut, or the man (Gregg Anderson) is secretly in love with Barroid and just can't bring himself to put him in prison, while Clemens couldn't stand the fact that some peon (Brian McNamee) had squealed and went after said peon with a vengeance.

I'm 99.99% certain that every other regular reader of this thread understood what I was trying to say, but then again, Timmy is the one person who can't quite grasp what everyone else understands, about steroids and the respective cases against Bonds and Clemens.

[Tim McG]

Here's your post, Danny.

I have highlighted your pretend "sloppy writing":

Keep dreaming Timmy.

The only difference between Bonds and Clemens is that Bonds either made a deal with him to keep his mouth shut, or the man is secretly in love with Barroid and just can't bring himself to put him in prison, while Clemens couldn't stand the fact that some peon had squealed and went after said peon with a vengeance.

The former is a much smarter play.

Keep dreaming, Danny.

[Dan Gould]

You are the dumbest fuck on the planet, Timmy.

Anyone else miss the reference and not understand what I was saying? Anyone else think that I intended to imply an unrequited love between Clemens and Bonds?

[Chalupa]

I understood what Dan was trying to say in his post. I only got confused when Goodie misinterpreted it. I then went back and tried to find where Dan said that there was some kind bromance going on between Bonds/Clemens to no avail.

[papsrus]

However anyone might have read that passage at first Dan, you subsequently clarified it, so I don't quite understand why anyone would make an issue out of it or be confused about it now.

Back to the Bonds case, as I understand it, the judge is disallowing some (not all) of Bonds' test results because the trainer won't verify that they're his, preferring jail time over testifying. So, if prosecutors are able to somehow get Anderson to testify, will those test results be back in? I guess they would be, since that's the sole reason they're being disallowed.

[Dan Gould]

Thank you, J.H.!

James, I believe that Anderson will not appear on the witness list. He's established to the satisfaction of the judge that he will not answer questions, and he's served his penalty by going to jail on behalf of Bonds (at least someone will have). As a consequence, two main pieces of evidence, the doping calendar and the urinalysis ordered by BALCO, will not be mentioned because of chain-of-custody issues.

The prosecution is going to trial with the rest of its evidence, like the statements from the mistress, statements from friends of Bonds, and I expect some expert testimony about markers of steroid use like massive strength gains in very short periods. There's no doubt though that Gregg Anderson took a chainsaw to the government's evidence, no doubt due to his unrequited love for Bonds or the fact that Bonds has promised him a nice-size check after its all over, if he isn't convicted.

Did you get that, Timmy? Any reading comprehension issue? Anderson may love Bonds. Anderson. Not Clemens.

[Aggie87]

...Bonds has promised him a nice-size check after its all over...

That would be my hunch.

[Matthew]

...Bonds has promised him a nice-size check after its all over...

That would be my hunch.

But, would not that be illegal, to pay someone not to testify?

[Dan Gould]

Of course but how do you prove it? Someone gives Anderson money who got it from someone who got it from a shell company set up by an affiliate of another company that owns another company that's owned by Bonds?

Its also possible (though I don't think likely) that Anderson really does feel wronged by the government when he was told that he wouldn't have to testify about certain things or about Bonds or whatever it is he feels aggrieved about. If that's the case, then Bonds is incredibly lucky to be the unintended benfeciary.

[Tim McG]

Here is your post yet again:

Keep dreaming Timmy.

The only difference between Bonds and Clemens is that Bonds either made a deal with him to keep his mouth shut, or the man is secretly in love with Barroid and just can't bring himself to put him in prison, while Clemens couldn't stand the fact that some peon had squealed and went after said peon with a vengeance.

The former is a much smarter play.

I dunno, Danny. You are saying, word for word, Clemens is in love with Bonds.

Seriously, I do not know how anyone can read this and expect it to mean anything else.

Edited August 27, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

The whole reference in that sentence is to another person altogether - "Bonds made a deal with HIM", meaning a third party, clearly Gregg Anderson. Clearly NOT Clemens. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't think there is any other way to read that. Context is important.

Plus, Dan clarified it so there would be no confusion, and you're STILL arguing about it??

[Dan Gould]

That's because he's a flipping moron. No one has stepped in to say they didn't recognize the reference being to the differences in the integrity of their respective personal trainers. Only Goodie insists on continuing to read it in his own moronic way.

More power to him. Keep believing it, Timmy. No one else gives a shit, and you continue to demonstrate how much of a fool you are.

[Tim McG]

The whole reference in that sentence is to another person altogether - "Bonds made a deal with HIM", meaning a third party, clearly Gregg Anderson. Clearly NOT Clemens. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't think there is any other way to read that. Context is important.

Plus, Dan clarified it so there would be no confusion, and you're STILL arguing about it??

"....OR the man is secretly in love with Barroid and just can't bring himself to put him in prison."

I guess if you leave out the most important part of his sentence there wouldn't be any other way to read that, Aggie.

Context, in the whole, is important. I won't argue with you on that point. Cut and paste, is clear manipulation of that context. "Him" is an unqualified pronoun in that sentence and it refers back, grammatically, to Clemens. Given Danny's penchant for the profane and bizarre commentary, it is a completely plausible interpretation. Self-serving jackasses do that....then they blame you.

Dan clarified? Please. This is a guy who honestly believes steroids make you hit HRs. Then hurls insults when he knows he's dead wrong.

Be realistic, Aggie.

Edited August 27, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Chuck Nessa]

Goodie likes steroids - Dan does not.

I'm with Dan.

[Tim McG]

Goodie likes steroids - Dan does not.

I'm with Dan.

Correction: I like neither.

[papsrus]

The whole reference in that sentence is to another person altogether - "Bonds made a deal with HIM", meaning a third party, clearly Gregg Anderson. Clearly NOT Clemens. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't think there is any other way to read that. Context is important.

Plus, Dan clarified it so there would be no confusion, and you're STILL arguing about it??

"....OR the man is secretly in love with Barroid and just can't bring himself to put him in prison."

I guess if you leave out the most important part of his sentence there wouldn't be any other way to read that, Aggie.

Context, in the whole, is important. I won't argue with you on that point. Cut and paste, is manipulation.

Dan clarified? Please. This is a guy who honestly believes steroids make you hit HRs. Then hurls insults when he knows he's dead wrong.

Be realistic, Aggie.

You're arguing over semantics, and it is a meaningless argument now that Dan has spelled out specifically what he meant.

Anabolic steroids help increase muscle mass. More muscle means more power. More power means longer fly balls.

You must be the only person in America who does not acknowledge that steroids, HGH and other PEDs (which stands for 'performance-enhancing drugs,' which should give you a hint as to their purpose) don't increase an athlete's performance levels, shorten recovery times, enhance training methods, help someone who can already hit a baseball hit that baseball farther.

What is the basis for this belief of yours? Do you have any widely accepted medical evidence that shows steroids don't affect the performance of an athlete? That they don't add muscle mass? Don't shorten recovery times?

Edited August 27, 2010 by papsrus

[Noj]

My problem with the Steroid Witch Hunt is that there was a culture of steroid use which was ignored if not endorsed by the owners and coaching staffs. MLB had no problem cashing in on the Steroid Home Run Derby, and fans packed the stadiums to watch the balls fly out of the yard. The hitters were juiced, the pitchers were juiced, AND they tightened up the strings on the balls to make sure they flew extra far. To put this at the feet of the players, and not include the trainers, coaching staffs, FANS, and owners who looked the other way, is bullshit. And we heard about it as fans. Now everyone is all up in arms and crying about the "sacred" records and all this nonsense.

Well, I say it's crap. The baseball world should collectively accept responsibility, let all the records stand since nearly everyone was guilty to a certain degree, and MOVE ON. Get over it. It happened. It wasn't Barry Bonds' fault or Roger Clemens' fault. It was damn near everybody's fault.