I think Pete should also be in the Hall because of what he did on the field before he started betting on baseball, but I don't think they should let him back into baseball to be a manager or whatever. He violated a rule that is posted in the clubhouse of every stadium and he lied about it for 14 years.
Barry Bonds
- Thread starter Purogamer
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 143
- Views 14K
Purogamer said:
I guess the list of drugs are calander of Barry's use of those drugs that they found at Balco was just made up to frame poor Barry bonds. Cream wasnt the only thing this steriod ape was taking and there is written evidence of it.
"Investigators seized calendars that recorded schedules for Bonds's use of those drugs, as well as human growth hormone, clomid, insulin and other steroids."
Last edited:
How about providing a source for that quote. Is that from official court documents, or just speculation from a book? Let me guess...vurbano said:
It's not about belief, it's about what he actually admitted and what's been proven. He didn't admit squat. The only thing he admitted was using a cream and a clear stubstance given to him by Greg Anderson. If he's already admitted to using steroids, why are they two separate investigations going on? The only person that allegedly admitting taking steroids was Jason Giambi. And that was through leaked testimony. Giambi still hasn't admitted it publicly. Even Gary Sheffield said that he used a cream and a clear substance. He didn't say that he used steroids, and no one has proven that he actually used them. They could have been, but it hasn't been proven. First they have to determine if they have enough evidence to try Bonds for perjury, then they have to take him to trial and get a conviction. So neither baseball nor anyone can come down on him until they actually prove something. You may have your opinions and beliefs, but those are the actual facts.Pistol said:
And talking about false accomplishments, read this: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=gillette_gary&id=2453993&CMP=ILC-INHEAD%22. This was just published today, and echoes what I've been saying all along. Just more facts that people (especially Ruth apologists) don't want to acknowledge.
I agree; look at it like this:
Lets say you have a co-worker that tells your company / or boss that you use drugs, yet you have never failed any test & continue to pass all tests; I bet your ass you would be saying the exact same thing Barry is. Just because the buddy had a calendar, does that mean or prove Barry knew what was in that stuff? We can all assume, but can we prove beyond any reasonable doubt he KNEW what was what? The continued passing of tests speaks a lot; even during his time off he was still under contract and taking tests. If they "caught" Palmero, then they should have caught Barry too, right? How come we don't crucify Lance Armstrong with as much voracity, with just as much hearsay? Because people love to love him, and hate Barry. Lets just all wait for the failed drug tests.
Brainiac: can you C&P that article please; the ESPN IN requires a subscription.
Lets say you have a co-worker that tells your company / or boss that you use drugs, yet you have never failed any test & continue to pass all tests; I bet your ass you would be saying the exact same thing Barry is. Just because the buddy had a calendar, does that mean or prove Barry knew what was in that stuff? We can all assume, but can we prove beyond any reasonable doubt he KNEW what was what? The continued passing of tests speaks a lot; even during his time off he was still under contract and taking tests. If they "caught" Palmero, then they should have caught Barry too, right? How come we don't crucify Lance Armstrong with as much voracity, with just as much hearsay? Because people love to love him, and hate Barry. Lets just all wait for the failed drug tests.
Brainiac: can you C&P that article please; the ESPN IN requires a subscription.
Perceptions of history are slippery
By Gary Gillette
ESPN Insider
Barry Bonds has hit home run No. 715, passing "The Sultan of Swat" and taking sole possession of second place on the all-time list. Now he continues his pursuit of Hank Aaron and No. 756 -- the most important record in professional sports.
Congratulations. Sincerely, congratulations. Frankly, the hysteria displayed by both the fans and the media over Bonds' pursuit of the The Babe's and Hammerin' Hank's magical numbers has been truly revolting.
Regardless of what Bonds has done, regardless of whether he cheated to achieve the record, regardless of whatever performance-enhancing drugs he might have ingested or injected, the past few weeks have been as close to a witch hunt as America has seen since Salem, Mass., was a member of the colonial big leagues in the 17th century.
Whether Bonds can catch Aaron is an open question. In either case, under normal circumstances, whether Bonds hits 756 home runs or retires a little short of that mark, his legacy will be secure.
Needless to say, however, these are not normal times. Pundits and politicians alike have been grandstanding on the issue, with some calling for an asterisk next to Bonds' records and his statistics. Others go much further, fanatically demanding that Bonds and his controversial numbers be stricken completely from the record books in some illogical attempt to rewrite history.
As the editor of "The 2006 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia" -- the only up-to-date, in-print encyclopedia that covers all of baseball history -- I have more than a passing interest in this controversy. And I have one thing to say to everyone who wants to treat Bonds' records differently from the myriad other records in our book or in any other baseball book:
Enough is enough.
The outcry against Bonds and his records should seem just plain silly when viewed in the context of baseball history. Bonds' "record" is no more "tainted" than many -- if not most -- of the great records in baseball history. And while Bonds enjoyed several significant advantages on the way to 715, so did every other great home run hitter.
Babe Ruth had the incalculable advantage of playing his whole career during a segregated era, when he and every other white hitter didn't have to face great black pitchers such as Smokey Joe Williams, Bullet Joe Rogan and Satchel Paige. Nor have their batting statistics compared to legendary blackball sluggers such as Josh Gibson, who many feel might have broken Ruth's single-season home run record. Ruth also enjoyed playing all of his games during the daytime while having to travel no further west than St. Louis and no further south than Washington, D.C. Furthermore, Ruth didn't have to face the fresh arms and blazing fastballs of the great relief pitchers who would intimidate so many hitters decades later.
Hank Aaron benefited from hitting in the many cozy neighborhood ballparks still in use in the 1950s and 1960s, just like contemporary sluggers have benefited from playing in the retro ballparks. Though Aaron's home parks in Milwaukee and Atlanta were not neighborhood parks, he did play in Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium when it was known as the "Launching Pad," giving him an overall home-park advantage for his career. Aaron took advantage of the newly implemented designated hitter rule at the end of his career, adding 22 home runs to the lead he had over Ruth. And, paradoxically enough, the great Henry Aaron also benefited from a lack of true integration in the game, as the level of discrimination in baseball meant that it was extremely slow to allow African-American pitchers to play a prominent role -- even as great black hitters such as Aaron, Willie Mays and Roy Campanella were knocking the stuffing out of the ball. Finally, Aaron played much of his career in an era when offense dominated in the NL, just like Bonds during the so-called "steroids era."
None of the above takes anything away from the greatness of Aaron, Ruth or Bonds. All players play in the era that they were born into, and all of them play with significant advantages and some disadvantages. As one might expect, great records tend to be set during years and eras when the natural advantages point in a particular way, aiding one group of players while simultaneously penalizing others.
Perceptions of baseball history are slippery, especially for those who have gone around the bend over the usage of steroids and the offensive explosion of the 1990s and early 2000s. Consider these facts for a moment. The top-scoring decade in modern NL history (i.e., since 1901) was from 1921 through '30 with 9.8 runs per game. From 1991 through 2003, NL scoring was 9.2 runs per game. Forget steroids, what kind of performance enhancers were those guys using in the 1920s?
The American League saw 10.4 runs scored per game during 1931-1940, a modern high for a league. That mark still stands, even after the offensive peak of 1991-2000 (AL: 9.9) and even when counting 2001-03 before testing as a "decade" (AL: 9.7). Yet when AL scoring hit exactly that same average with 10.4 runs per game in 1999, the hue and cry about how "arena baseball" had made a mockery of the game was unbelievable.
From 1951 through '60, NL hitters slammed 1.8 home runs per game, barely different from the 1.9 per game hit from 1991 through 2000. What was the hidden secret, other than the prodigious talent of the great sluggers such as Aaron and Mays?
So all of the hand-wringing over the integrity of baseball's records boils down to this: During 1991-2003, home runs were hit at a rate higher than ever before, and some of that increase had to do with performance-enhancing drugs. Big deal. The common belief that the new steroid-testing regimen of 2004 caused offense and home runs to drop is a fallacy. The fact is that scoring and home runs both peaked in 2000 and had dropped approximately 8 percent in the following three years.
Steroids were only one part of the offensive equation, and probably not the most important element. There were several other major reasons and a dozen minor factors that also contributed to the barrage of long balls. Furthermore, all steroid usage was not against the rules, depending on the year in question and the drugs taken. And even when it was, MLB deliberately chose to look the other way when the game needed to bring back the fans and the record-setting rules-breakers were packing ballparks.
So if the "blame" for the home run binge can't be laid upon steroids, then why the outrage? Because using steroids was cheating? C'mon. Really? Cheating has been part of major league baseball since the beginning, and a review of baseball history indicates that pitchers have been far bigger cheaters than hitters for most of that time. Cooperstown is full of pitchers who cheated for decades; let's get a retired U.S. senator to investigate their careers.
Many older baseball fans fondly remember the great 1968 season, when Hall of Famer Bob Gibson seemed invincible -- at least until he faced the Detroit Tigers in Game 7 of the World Series. Gibson posted an unbelievable 1.12 ERA that year, going 22-9 with 28 complete games and hurling 13 shutouts. (Gibson's ERA is widely, though erroneously, believed to be the best in modern history.) In response to the dearth of offense after that "great" season, baseball owners lowered the height of the pitching mound from 15 to 10 inches.
In a recent panel discussion about steroids and Barry Bonds, hosted by Bob Costas on HBO, Gibson complained about that rule change, calling it "illegal" and implying that all batting records set after 1968 were suspect. Gibson conveniently failed to mention, however, that his career season was possible only because those same owners had made another rule change in 1963, when they enlarged the strike zone from the armpits to the top of the shoulders. Giving this huge advantage to pitchers in a high-strike environment immediately caused scoring to drop 15 percent to deadball-era levels in the National League.
In 1968, Gibson enjoyed pitching in a league in which offense was lower than at any time since 1908. Why hasn't that made the pitching records set during the mid-1960s suspect? Or "illegal," to adopt Gibson's standard?
Let's take another prominent example: Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. It is often cited as the paradigm of an unimpeachable record by those who feel that the integrity of all home run records has now been destroyed. Did you know that DiMaggio's legendary streak was prolonged by a highly unusual stratagem, employed solely to help preserve the streak? In the bottom of the eighth inning of Game 38, with a runner on base and one out and New York leading by two runs, Yankees slugger Tommy Henrich laid down a sacrifice bunt. Why? To avoid hitting into an inning-ending double play with the hitless-on-the-day DiMaggio on deck.
Henrich hit 31 home runs that year, sacrificing only seven other times and grounding into only six DPs. He never would have laid down that bunt if not to guarantee DiMaggio would get another chance to extend the streak. Does that call into question the integrity of that record?
Barry Bonds is unquestionably one of the greatest players ever to play the game. He is also one of the greatest home run hitters in history. He will end up holding many important records. He is not a perfect person, nor has his career been without controversy. As such, he fits perfectly into the imperfect history of the national pastime.
Enough is enough.
Gary Gillette is the editor of "The 2006 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia," which was published in March by Sterling. Click here to order a copy. Gary can be reached via e-mail at GGillette@247Baseball.com.
By Gary Gillette
ESPN Insider
Barry Bonds has hit home run No. 715, passing "The Sultan of Swat" and taking sole possession of second place on the all-time list. Now he continues his pursuit of Hank Aaron and No. 756 -- the most important record in professional sports.
Congratulations. Sincerely, congratulations. Frankly, the hysteria displayed by both the fans and the media over Bonds' pursuit of the The Babe's and Hammerin' Hank's magical numbers has been truly revolting.
Regardless of what Bonds has done, regardless of whether he cheated to achieve the record, regardless of whatever performance-enhancing drugs he might have ingested or injected, the past few weeks have been as close to a witch hunt as America has seen since Salem, Mass., was a member of the colonial big leagues in the 17th century.
Whether Bonds can catch Aaron is an open question. In either case, under normal circumstances, whether Bonds hits 756 home runs or retires a little short of that mark, his legacy will be secure.
Needless to say, however, these are not normal times. Pundits and politicians alike have been grandstanding on the issue, with some calling for an asterisk next to Bonds' records and his statistics. Others go much further, fanatically demanding that Bonds and his controversial numbers be stricken completely from the record books in some illogical attempt to rewrite history.
As the editor of "The 2006 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia" -- the only up-to-date, in-print encyclopedia that covers all of baseball history -- I have more than a passing interest in this controversy. And I have one thing to say to everyone who wants to treat Bonds' records differently from the myriad other records in our book or in any other baseball book:
Enough is enough.
The outcry against Bonds and his records should seem just plain silly when viewed in the context of baseball history. Bonds' "record" is no more "tainted" than many -- if not most -- of the great records in baseball history. And while Bonds enjoyed several significant advantages on the way to 715, so did every other great home run hitter.
Babe Ruth had the incalculable advantage of playing his whole career during a segregated era, when he and every other white hitter didn't have to face great black pitchers such as Smokey Joe Williams, Bullet Joe Rogan and Satchel Paige. Nor have their batting statistics compared to legendary blackball sluggers such as Josh Gibson, who many feel might have broken Ruth's single-season home run record. Ruth also enjoyed playing all of his games during the daytime while having to travel no further west than St. Louis and no further south than Washington, D.C. Furthermore, Ruth didn't have to face the fresh arms and blazing fastballs of the great relief pitchers who would intimidate so many hitters decades later.
Hank Aaron benefited from hitting in the many cozy neighborhood ballparks still in use in the 1950s and 1960s, just like contemporary sluggers have benefited from playing in the retro ballparks. Though Aaron's home parks in Milwaukee and Atlanta were not neighborhood parks, he did play in Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium when it was known as the "Launching Pad," giving him an overall home-park advantage for his career. Aaron took advantage of the newly implemented designated hitter rule at the end of his career, adding 22 home runs to the lead he had over Ruth. And, paradoxically enough, the great Henry Aaron also benefited from a lack of true integration in the game, as the level of discrimination in baseball meant that it was extremely slow to allow African-American pitchers to play a prominent role -- even as great black hitters such as Aaron, Willie Mays and Roy Campanella were knocking the stuffing out of the ball. Finally, Aaron played much of his career in an era when offense dominated in the NL, just like Bonds during the so-called "steroids era."
None of the above takes anything away from the greatness of Aaron, Ruth or Bonds. All players play in the era that they were born into, and all of them play with significant advantages and some disadvantages. As one might expect, great records tend to be set during years and eras when the natural advantages point in a particular way, aiding one group of players while simultaneously penalizing others.
Perceptions of baseball history are slippery, especially for those who have gone around the bend over the usage of steroids and the offensive explosion of the 1990s and early 2000s. Consider these facts for a moment. The top-scoring decade in modern NL history (i.e., since 1901) was from 1921 through '30 with 9.8 runs per game. From 1991 through 2003, NL scoring was 9.2 runs per game. Forget steroids, what kind of performance enhancers were those guys using in the 1920s?
The American League saw 10.4 runs scored per game during 1931-1940, a modern high for a league. That mark still stands, even after the offensive peak of 1991-2000 (AL: 9.9) and even when counting 2001-03 before testing as a "decade" (AL: 9.7). Yet when AL scoring hit exactly that same average with 10.4 runs per game in 1999, the hue and cry about how "arena baseball" had made a mockery of the game was unbelievable.
From 1951 through '60, NL hitters slammed 1.8 home runs per game, barely different from the 1.9 per game hit from 1991 through 2000. What was the hidden secret, other than the prodigious talent of the great sluggers such as Aaron and Mays?
So all of the hand-wringing over the integrity of baseball's records boils down to this: During 1991-2003, home runs were hit at a rate higher than ever before, and some of that increase had to do with performance-enhancing drugs. Big deal. The common belief that the new steroid-testing regimen of 2004 caused offense and home runs to drop is a fallacy. The fact is that scoring and home runs both peaked in 2000 and had dropped approximately 8 percent in the following three years.
Steroids were only one part of the offensive equation, and probably not the most important element. There were several other major reasons and a dozen minor factors that also contributed to the barrage of long balls. Furthermore, all steroid usage was not against the rules, depending on the year in question and the drugs taken. And even when it was, MLB deliberately chose to look the other way when the game needed to bring back the fans and the record-setting rules-breakers were packing ballparks.
So if the "blame" for the home run binge can't be laid upon steroids, then why the outrage? Because using steroids was cheating? C'mon. Really? Cheating has been part of major league baseball since the beginning, and a review of baseball history indicates that pitchers have been far bigger cheaters than hitters for most of that time. Cooperstown is full of pitchers who cheated for decades; let's get a retired U.S. senator to investigate their careers.
Many older baseball fans fondly remember the great 1968 season, when Hall of Famer Bob Gibson seemed invincible -- at least until he faced the Detroit Tigers in Game 7 of the World Series. Gibson posted an unbelievable 1.12 ERA that year, going 22-9 with 28 complete games and hurling 13 shutouts. (Gibson's ERA is widely, though erroneously, believed to be the best in modern history.) In response to the dearth of offense after that "great" season, baseball owners lowered the height of the pitching mound from 15 to 10 inches.
In a recent panel discussion about steroids and Barry Bonds, hosted by Bob Costas on HBO, Gibson complained about that rule change, calling it "illegal" and implying that all batting records set after 1968 were suspect. Gibson conveniently failed to mention, however, that his career season was possible only because those same owners had made another rule change in 1963, when they enlarged the strike zone from the armpits to the top of the shoulders. Giving this huge advantage to pitchers in a high-strike environment immediately caused scoring to drop 15 percent to deadball-era levels in the National League.
In 1968, Gibson enjoyed pitching in a league in which offense was lower than at any time since 1908. Why hasn't that made the pitching records set during the mid-1960s suspect? Or "illegal," to adopt Gibson's standard?
Let's take another prominent example: Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. It is often cited as the paradigm of an unimpeachable record by those who feel that the integrity of all home run records has now been destroyed. Did you know that DiMaggio's legendary streak was prolonged by a highly unusual stratagem, employed solely to help preserve the streak? In the bottom of the eighth inning of Game 38, with a runner on base and one out and New York leading by two runs, Yankees slugger Tommy Henrich laid down a sacrifice bunt. Why? To avoid hitting into an inning-ending double play with the hitless-on-the-day DiMaggio on deck.
Henrich hit 31 home runs that year, sacrificing only seven other times and grounding into only six DPs. He never would have laid down that bunt if not to guarantee DiMaggio would get another chance to extend the streak. Does that call into question the integrity of that record?
Barry Bonds is unquestionably one of the greatest players ever to play the game. He is also one of the greatest home run hitters in history. He will end up holding many important records. He is not a perfect person, nor has his career been without controversy. As such, he fits perfectly into the imperfect history of the national pastime.
Enough is enough.
Gary Gillette is the editor of "The 2006 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia," which was published in March by Sterling. Click here to order a copy. Gary can be reached via e-mail at GGillette@247Baseball.com.
"Barry Bonds is unquestionably one of the greatest players ever to play the game. He is also one of the greatest home run hitters in history. He will end up holding many important records. He is not a perfect person, nor has his career been without controversy. As such, he fits perfectly into the imperfect history of the national pastime. "
Amen!
Is he a Hot Dog? YES. Is he the biggest a$$hole that ever played baseball? Possibly. But he is a damn good player, the best that I've ever watched played baseball.
Amen!
Is he a Hot Dog? YES. Is he the biggest a$$hole that ever played baseball? Possibly. But he is a damn good player, the best that I've ever watched played baseball.
How about looking back a page or two. It just proves you are not even reading evidence already submitted in this thread days agobrainiac said:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/14/sports/base.php
"<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=421 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=421>Baseball: Bonds perjury inquiry is reported
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width=421>The Associated Press
SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 2006
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=421>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=421><!-- article body start --><!-- google_ad_region_start=article_body --><!-- body text start -->SAN FRANCISCO A federal grand jury is investigating whether Barry Bonds committed perjury when he testified in 2003 that he had never used steroids, a person with knowledge of the investigation told The Associated Press on Thursday.
This person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the investigation.
The panel has been hearing evidence for more than a month about whether Bonds lied to a different grand jury that was investigating the scandal involving the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or Balco. The existence of the grand jury was first reported by CNN on Thursday.
Luke Macaulay, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco, said he could neither confirm nor deny the reports.
Bonds was granted immunity when he testified before the Balco grand jury in December 2003, as long as he told the truth. According to excerpts from the testimony previously reported by The San Francisco Chronicle, Bonds testified that he used a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer who later pleaded guilty in a steroid-distribution ring, but said he didn't know they were steroids.
Bonds told the grand jury that his personal trainer, Greg Anderson, told him that the substances he used were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis.
The substances Bonds described were similar to ones known as "the clear" and "the cream," two steroids at the center of the Balco scandal. Investigators seized calendars that recorded schedules for Bonds's use of those drugs, as well as human growth hormone, clomid, insulin and other steroids, according to The Chronicle.
Bonds, who has always denied using steroids, left the San Francisco Giants ballpark Thursday night without answering questions about the report from reporters. When asked what he would tell his fans, Bonds responded, "Tell them I love them."
After last month's release of the book "Game of Shadows," which details steroid use by Bonds and other players, baseball's commissioner, Bud Selig, began an investigation.
Harry Stern, a lawyer in the firm representing Bonds, said that Bonds had told the truth when he testified to the grand jury and that the firm had no knowledge of the new grand jury investigation.
A baseball spokesman, Rich Levin, said he was aware of the reports, "but it's just not appropriate for us to comment at this time."
Dr. Arthur Ting, Bonds's personal surgeon, has been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury investigating possible perjury charges, said person with knowledge of the investigation.
Ting, who treated Bonds for a knee injury that kept him out for most of the 2005 season, will be called to appear before the panel meeting at U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the person said.
Bonds played Thursday in the first game of a doubleheader against the Astros and came close to hitting his first homer of the year and No. 709 in his career. He drove in his first run of the season with a seventh-inning single and also had two deep flyouts.
This is the longest Bonds has gone into a season when healthy without a homer since 1998, when he didn't hit one out until San Francisco's 13th game. He is 3 for 16 (.188) with one run batted in.
Moises Alou hit his 300th career home run as the Giants won, 5-3.
Bonds and Alou sat out the second, and Lance Berkman hit two homes runs for the visiting Astros, who won, 8-0."
<!-- body text end --><!-- google_ad_region_end=article_body -->
<!-- google_ad_region_start=article_body --><!-- body text start -->
<!-- body text end --><!-- google_ad_region_end=article_body -->
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Last edited:
vurbano said:
Prove it.
I hear people on tv all the time now talking "ahbla bla Babe did it on Beer and Hotdogs ahbla bla" You stupid dopes. Back in those days alcohol was illegal in most states. It was an illegal substance so in this case you can put the Babe in the same catagory as Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry.
Guess again! This is according to a newspaper report, not official records. Look at the title of the article in your post - "inquiry." In other words, they don't have proof. Keep trying, though!:hahavurbano said:
Last edited:
I saw a calendar for Marion Jones too, though there's more evidence of her using than there ever was of barry...
756 is NOT the most important number in sports, not even close. 61 was a bigger number than 755 is...
I can understand the bond's hatred, but did you have to call him an ape? That's a little too far...
Lance Armstrong has also been RUMORED to be taking drugs but never been caught and never failed a test, and he's the most tested athlete in cycling. Other guys fail all the time. Lance has the best prep routine of anyone, which is why he won. I wouldn't be surprised if the chemo and cancer drugs did something to give him an advantage, but you can't prove any of that. Most people overseas hate lance because he's an american winning a non-american event. They'd hate him no matter what he did.
If you want to hate lance, there's plenty of decent reasons like how he left his wife who stood by his side while he had cancer...and as if that wasn't enough, he left sheryl crow when she got cancer. I have the highest respect for him as an athlete, but as a man he's kind of a scumbag...
756 is NOT the most important number in sports, not even close. 61 was a bigger number than 755 is...
I can understand the bond's hatred, but did you have to call him an ape? That's a little too far...
Lance Armstrong has also been RUMORED to be taking drugs but never been caught and never failed a test, and he's the most tested athlete in cycling. Other guys fail all the time. Lance has the best prep routine of anyone, which is why he won. I wouldn't be surprised if the chemo and cancer drugs did something to give him an advantage, but you can't prove any of that. Most people overseas hate lance because he's an american winning a non-american event. They'd hate him no matter what he did.
If you want to hate lance, there's plenty of decent reasons like how he left his wife who stood by his side while he had cancer...and as if that wasn't enough, he left sheryl crow when she got cancer. I have the highest respect for him as an athlete, but as a man he's kind of a scumbag...
I would have to disagree. 756 would be a VERY important number. Much more than the old single season HR mark.
As for armstrong whether he ever faileda drug test isa disputed point. The french claim that he did. However the cirsumstances are murky---and the sample ws 7 years old.
As for armstrong whether he ever faileda drug test isa disputed point. The french claim that he did. However the cirsumstances are murky---and the sample ws 7 years old.
Last edited:
Geronimo said:
That was also stolen. Since its stolen by some shady characters that evidence is beyond, I mean beyond, credible. No one in their right mind let alone the legal system would hold that up.
brainiac said:
The Tate said:
The investigators have the records. Proof enough for me. Bonds was a freaking steriod pharmacists dream.
"According to a review of Bonds' grand jury testimony, some documents were in folders marked with Bonds' name or his initials. Investigators concluded that the documents contained evidence that Barry Bonds had been using steroids as early as the 2000 season. Prosecutors asked Bonds about the documents at the grand jury.
As the prosecutors described them, some documents reflect payments for drugs for Bonds. They included $1,500 for two boxes of human growth hormone; $450 for a bottle of the injectable steroid Depotestosterone; $100 for 100 pills of clomiphene, also known as Clomid, a female fertility drug that some BALCO athletes were supplied to mask their use of banned drugs; and $200 for "the cream" and "the clear," BALCO's designer steroids.
Other entries reflected what prosecutors believed was Bonds' drug cycle: for February 2002, for example, a calendar showed alternating days of cream, clear and growth hormone followed by "Clow," which investigators took to be a reference to Clomid, according to Bonds' testimony.
Another document labeled with Bonds initials, "BLB 2003," listed cities where the Giants played in 2003, with notations for the use of growth hormone, clear, cream and the diabetes drug insulin, which has muscle-building effects, on specific days. Other documents associated with Bonds referred to the steroid trenbolone and to steroid pills known as "Mexican beans."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/16/BONDS.TMP
The Tate said:
Prove the babe was drinking. Ill sink to this level for a moment. Prove it. And after that juvenile exercise try proving that alcohol is a muscle building/ performance enhancing drug. Ridiculous.
Last edited:
vurbano said:
When did I say it was a muscle building drug? I said it was a illegal substance like cocaine and in the same class as the players I mentioned. You must be insane.
The Tate said:
I don't doubt that Mr. Ruth used alcohol even during the time it was illegal. So you may have a point in comparing him to Gooden and Strawberry. However when people criticize Bonds i don't think it is the illegality of the substances that upsets them as much as the fact that the substances he is alleged to have consumed are performance enhancers and they see that as giving him a leg up on players of other eras or players of the same era that chose not to cross that line.
Purogamer said:
It is true that he has never failed a league administered drug test. However these tests did not start until 2004 and the reports are that Bonds stopped using HGH and other substances before that. Moreover there is still no good test for HGH.
But it is totally unfair to say that his drug use is "proven.". We know bits and pieces of the story only and most of that is from leaked grand jury testimony and a book.
I suspect that Bonds did use steroids. I have no other rational explanation for a man who traditionally had HR totals 30s and 40s jumping rapidly to a spike of 73 homers at an age when production usually drops. But I suspect that if he had never used steroids he would be closing in on 600 home runs and it would be considered a positive accomplishment. After all being up there with Ruth, Aaron and Mays is pretty good. That puts him ahead of Yaz, Robinson, Musial, Williams and a host of other legends of the game.
Brewer4 said:
I have no idea how the French legal system would view it---or why they would. All I said was that he may or may not have failed a test-----but I was careful to describe it allas "murky". But Is ee no evidence that the samples were "Stolen". If you have proof of that I would be curious.
Lets not for get who has the most of anybody!! Josh Gibson
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/gibson_josh.htm
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/gibson_josh.htm
Similar threads
