11/21/24
February 13, 2004
"Sport, as we know it, is about to blow up." So says Jay Mariotti in today's Chicago Sun-Times. Yesterday, indictments were announced against three men charged with running an illegal steroid distribution network and lab. The article continues by saying, "Attorney General John Ashcroft said dozens of athletes used THG and other steroids obtained from the network and even were supplied with alibis to use if busted."
Of course, no disucssion of this would be complete without mentioning Barry Bonds, who for his part says "I am saddened by the news of the indictment against my trainer and friend."
It's pretty obvious what is going to happen to the people who supplied the illegal substances but what about the players? Would you consider them victims? Or are they responsible, but just lower on the scale?
posted by jasonspaceman at 08:13 AM on February 13, 2004
Players are not victims. No one could ever convince me Bonds isn't juiced now.
posted by jerseygirl at 09:05 AM on February 13, 2004
"Bring out the asterik!"
posted by garfield at 09:11 AM on February 13, 2004
No one could ever convince me Bonds isn't juiced now. What happens if he passes every test they give him this year, and still has one of his Bond-esque seasons? Would that be good enough? Or is this like that whole "gay taint" thing that happens to players (like Mike Piazza and Wendel Clark)? Once someone accuses or implies something like this, it can NEVER be removed regardless of any evidence to the contrary (like Wendel Clark getting married and having children).
posted by grum@work at 09:14 AM on February 13, 2004
grum, you seriously believe Bonds was clean?
posted by garfield at 09:19 AM on February 13, 2004
I think grum was just playing devil's advocate.
posted by jasonspaceman at 09:25 AM on February 13, 2004
good. i thought he fell off his rocker for a moment.
posted by garfield at 09:34 AM on February 13, 2004
What a mess. If these guys were juiced, think of the ramifications for an entire generation of ballplayers. Almost nobody would be above suspicion. Team records, league records, historical records should all be called into question. Bonds is only one guy. What about Sosa, Bret Boone, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Juan Gonzales, Jeff Bagwell, Jim Thome, etc. etc. ad infinitum. I am NOT suggesting all the bashers are guilty, what I am saying is WHO FUCKING KNOWS ANY MORE???
posted by vito90 at 09:40 AM on February 13, 2004
Would that be good enough? Nope. Not when I read things like this: "One steroid, called "The Cream," included a substance that masked an athlete's use of the drug during testing. Another, called "The Clear," was sold to the athletes as a substance that would provide steroidlike effects without causing a positive drug test." -- espn "GREG ANDERSON: Barry Bonds' friend from childhood and his personal trainer, and now a target of the investigation. Anderson reportedly brought Bonds and several other elite athletes to Conte and BALCO. Two days after BALCO was raided, federal agents broke down the door of Anderson's rented condominium and reportedly seized steroids, $60,000 in cash and documents with the names of athletes and details of their use of performance-enhancing drugs." -- seattlepi.com His trainer (his trainer!) has his house raided and steroids are found, the company/consultants he deals with regularly for monitoring his health and conditioning are indicted on illegal drug distribution. Look at Barry Bonds. Now look at his numbers since he got involved with Conti. So let's break it down. Barry Bonds starts working/training/conditioning with Anderson and Conti. Soon after, Bonds stats/numbers become astronomical. Bonds also bulks up tremendously, quickly and suspiciously. Now let's put the recent news into the equation. Barry Bonds has been working/training/conditioning with Anderson and Conti, who have now been indicted of distributing and in possession of assorted illegal performance enhancing drugs. Since becoming involved with them, Bonds has had record breaking seasons, bulked up to a hefty linebacker stature. The air of suspicion is just too thick to dismiss it as "Bonds has been really working out hard and dedicated to his conditioning". That's like saying someone who has been hanging out with coke dealers is getting nosebleeds for no real reason.
posted by jerseygirl at 09:45 AM on February 13, 2004
Nice, jg. NICE! I've probably mentioned this before, but one thing that really sold me and put me on the "Bonds is juiced" side was a guy I heard on the radio last summer. He'd set out to determine who had hit the longest home run in baseball history. Over the course of his research, which included looking into accounts of every home run Babe Ruth ever hit, along with many, many other players he discovered that Barry Bonds had not hit a home run over 415/425 feet before his "power surge" era. Now, it's relatively easy for him to break that mark. He does it frequently and not that many players do. Some of the increase can be chalked up to swing improvements and veteran pich selection, but he hit what Tim Salmon called the 'Longest ball I've ever seen' in the World Series a couple of years ago and I don't know what to chalk that up to. Barry's improvement in distance was the same as that of players known to have take enhancing drugs (McGuire with his andro, and other lesser-known confirmed steroid users). That, and his noggin is enormous. Oh, and his trainer is charged with distributing performance enhancing drugs.
posted by 86 at 09:58 AM on February 13, 2004
Maybe the coke dealers just keep punching him in the nose, jg. I agree that this is huge, and I also think that regardless of my issues with the current White House administration, they're doing us a service by trying to clean up sports. Maybe the SOTU wasn't the place to announce it, but it's still a good idea. As for Bonds, sure it's suspicious. But I'm still going to refrain from declaring him guilty until something more hefty than circumstantial evidence comes around. Also interesting in the article was Ashcroft's claim that they haven't ruled out pressing perjury charges against athletes.
posted by rocketman at 10:00 AM on February 13, 2004
Giambi then. Giambi now. Could we start seeing more 60s and 70s style of baseball now?
posted by jasonspaceman at 10:07 AM on February 13, 2004
More thoughts on my above comment. It seems like after watching hours upon hours of film, the playing style of baseball was much more fluid and with more athletic grace. Now it's just power power power. Sure, you had guys with the natural ability to hammer the ball like Aaron and Jackson (among many others), but were they juiced up? You also had pitchers like Carlton, Ryan and Sutton, but were they on steroids? When did we start seeing players becoming more in-human due to steroids? Was it there in the 60s and 70s (and even the 80s)? If not (or to a lesser extent), it would make my assesment right. Or am I gullible in thinking that?
posted by jasonspaceman at 10:16 AM on February 13, 2004
Also interesting in the article was Ashcroft's claim that they haven't ruled out pressing perjury charges against athletes. I can't wait. hey, jason, what year was the first giambi picture?
posted by jerseygirl at 10:18 AM on February 13, 2004
Jason, the other evidence is pretty damning, but those pictures don't convince me. Most people gain weight and thicken as their metabolism slows down. Combine that with a professional athlete's workout regimen, and those before and after pictures are unremarkable.
posted by dusted at 10:27 AM on February 13, 2004
The first one was from 1991.
posted by jasonspaceman at 10:31 AM on February 13, 2004
Now it's just power power power. Because it's even more about money money money. Teams dig the long ball. They are going to pay big bucks for a shortstop that hits 30HR and makes 25 errors.. They won't pay as much for a shortstop that hits 5 HR and makes 7 errors. Over the course of his research, which included looking into accounts of every home run Babe Ruth ever hit, along with many, many other players he discovered that Barry Bonds had not hit a home run over 415/425 feet before his "power surge" era. Now, it's relatively easy for him to break that mark. He does it frequently and not that many players do. Measuring home runs? That's how we determine "power"? Of course it has nothing to do with playing games in Colorado ("That's a pop-fly...and it's outta here!") or him using a different type of bat than when he did as a younger player (he switched from an ash bat to a maple bat in 2000) or the belief that a player loses speed but gains power after age 30 or that the concept of measuring home runs was a joke before about 1995 (like Mantle's supposed 600ft home run). Let's take a look at his SLG numbers from age 27 (often considered the age when players are reaching their peak of physical skills) to the present: .624 .677 .647 .577 .615 .585 .609 .617 .688 (switches to maple bat) .863 .799 .749 So what we have here is consistant production levels from the age of 27 to 35, and then a switch to a new type of bat and an obvious change in plate discipline or reading pitches (his OBP numbers for the past 4 years are highest of his career...is that also a side effect of steroids?). But let's just call it steroids even though there couldn't POSSIBLY be any other reason. Could he be using illegal performance enhancing drugs? Sure, but I haven't seen any evidence to prove it. And I'm still a fan of that "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
posted by grum@work at 12:47 PM on February 13, 2004
You know, if they had steroids back in the 1920s, I'm betting they would have tagged Ruth as a user. Obviously that isn't the case. But look at his numbers and compare them to the rest of the league; he hit more home runs in 1920 than any other American League TEAM (other than his own).
posted by grum@work at 01:03 PM on February 13, 2004
But let's just call it steroids even though there couldn't POSSIBLY be any other reason. Even if he reinvented the home run, if he was on steroids, it just isn't the same.
posted by garfield at 01:33 PM on February 13, 2004
And here's another thought. Actually a few thoughts. - No one had a 'blammo' year last year. And by 'blammo' i mean this: Everyone who had been hitting them out of the galaxy in those popular HR races for the previous few years were suddenly a bit more mortal this year. I don't think anyone even hit 50. Oddly enough, last year was the first year of random drug testing. Yes, it could be attributed to a few factors. Coincidence could have played a part. It could also be that the big batters aren't seeing pitches or being deliberately walked. It's still worth noting that sudden drop off across the board in correlation with the drug testing. - Bonds knows he's been under scrutiny and the subject of rumor for steroid use for years. He's pretty astute. Anderson is his pal as well as his friend. Chances are, Bonds was in the very least, vaguely aware that Anderson was into the steroids and he was also likely to be similarly aware of "the cream" and "the clear" that Balco was producing/providing. Even if Bonds wasn't using, I would guess he was at least offered the products/drugs, especially back when MLB wasn't testing at all. I have a hard time believing he didn't have an inkling of what was going on. Now having said that, suppose he's clean. Suppose he's not on that list of athletes that could be indicted. Why stay in the company of those people? Yes, he's your friend and trainer and this company provides you with testing and conditioning, but at what cost? A risk of guilt by association? An air of suspicion? Being hauled in front of the US Attorney General?
posted by jerseygirl at 01:48 PM on February 13, 2004
All I know is that the man has gotten quite large lately, training with a guy accused of distributing steroids. That and, in 2000 Bonds hit 49 home runs. It was a career high. That winter his friend took him to meet Victor Conte. The next year his home run production jumped to 73, an amazing 49% increase. He not guilty. He's not even been charged. But if this is all because of a bat, I'm buying every Met a maple tree.
posted by 86 at 02:29 PM on February 13, 2004
Well, if I was in a court room trying to defend Bonds (and I'm not really an "apologist" for him, I'm just being contrarian for the sake of discussion), I'd present the following as my evidence against steroids: - change in bat corresponds exactly with change in power output (set career highs in SLG and HR) - corresponding leap in OBP with SLG suggests a better eye and plate patience (not known to be side effects of steroid use) - no direct link to steroid use (Manny Alexander got caught with the stuff in his car, but only tangental links to Bonds) or failed tests (two Olympian ball players were caught, but not Bonds) I think that would be enough for "reasonable doubt". But since we are dealing with the court of public opinion, it would require some time-travelling drug testers to positively conclude that Bonds didn't use drugs. One last thing: The next year his home run production jumped to 73, an amazing 49% increase. Because that's never happened before... ;)
posted by grum@work at 02:48 PM on February 13, 2004
if they had steroids back in the 1920s Everyone knows Babe Ruth ate bull testicles.
posted by rocketman at 03:36 PM on February 13, 2004
If I was on the other side of our courtroom drama I would smoke a pipe and wear a neat hat. I would also pace in front of the jury and respond with pictures of the big-skulled Bonds and the other one. I would examine his seedy links to shady people. I would paint (easily) an ugly picture of him as a teammate and as relates to his experiences with the press. - I would then ask this, "Why the hell doesn't everyone switch bats and watch their power numbers soar?" Is it really all because of the bat? There could be plenty of factors at play, but I'm not buying the bat as even a primary one. If it is, I'm buying maple futures. - One side effects of steroid use is increased power. Some side of effects of increased power is an increase in walks and a decrease in the agressiveness of pitchers. This can easily can help explain a higher OBS. It comes from the power! - A very big direct link to steroids. - No one has ever jumped 49% to hit 73 home runs. That has never happened before.
posted by 86 at 03:37 PM on February 13, 2004
If I was on the other side of our courtroom drama I would smoke a pipe and wear a neat hat. And you would get thrown out of court for the smoking and snickered at online for your taste in headgear. Seriously, have you any understanding of the laws of evidence in California or the US? This isn't TV, you need real evidence to convict someone of a crime and courts threw out guilt by association when the Constitution was ratified.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:23 PM on February 13, 2004
(his OBP numbers for the past 4 years are highest of his career...is that also a side effect of steroids?) I would say yes it is. Bonds, being the longball threat he is, see's 2-3 hittable pitches in a game. The intentional walks and the "unintentional intentional" walks have helped him break and approach records for walks in a season (and he's right on Ricky's tail for career) the past few seasons. These walks are a/the major part of his great OBP. YMMV
posted by pivo at 06:56 PM on February 13, 2004
Even his walk stats should have an asterisk. What pivo and 86 said, minus the hat.
posted by vito90 at 08:30 PM on February 13, 2004
Of course all his stats should have an asterisk. Because it's been proven that he did something wrong, after all. I mean, c'mon: He looks different than he did fifteen years ago. What more proof do we need? That whole "presumption of innocence" thing was getting boring anyway.
posted by jeffmshaw at 12:53 AM on February 14, 2004
Dude, the guy's melon's more swollen than a porn star's breasts after her first trip to the surgeon. That's a direct side effect of HGH. I'm not saying he's going to test positive or anything. I'm just saying look at the circumstantial evidence and you be the judge.
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:21 AM on February 14, 2004
Saddened?!?!? Saddened?!? Look Barry, I know this guy is the only friend you have in the world, but frankly if my "friend" dragged me into a federal indictment mess and tarnished my reputation like this, even if just by association, I be pissed. Really pissed. Mariotti says this story is big... big enough to bring down some of the brightest stars in sports. Is it that big or is something that will wash away with time?