September 28, 2005

Well, all I have to say is so much for innocent until proven guilty. McGwire is acting like and pansy and should stand up and say yes or no to the question, but Barry Bonds told a grand jury he did not do roids and then was caught using the "cream." Now it is funny that a poll taken of the HOF voters showed that they would not vote Big Mac in but they would vote Barry in. Makes no sense. At least Mac isn't a prick of the highest order, but that is neither here nor there. Obviously the public doesn't care about steroids or Barry would be gone. (he is the one who touched of this firestorm in the first place). Everybody has to have something to complain about.

posted by mcstan13 at 01:25 PM on September 28, 2005

Has he tested positive? No? There must be a way around the tests then... I mean there has to be a way otherwise Barry is the best player in the history of the game and that can't be... I'm startin to panic here... The guy's an ass he can't be the best ever, there's gotta be an explanation he must be on roids... don't know how he manages to pass the tests though. I can do sarcasm too.

posted by tron7 at 01:48 PM on September 28, 2005

tron7 - There are drugs created everyday that cannot be tested for. Plus, Barry has admitted to steroid use. All I have to say is that look at the stats and the pictures. I am not saying that Barry is not a great player, but look at this site http://www.jockbio.com/Bios/Bonds/Bonds_bio.html. On the side bar look at the 1986 and 1990 baseball cards of him. Then look at the 2001 ESPN the Magazine cover. Unless I am going blind, he filled out faster than a teenage girl on prom night. Plus, look at the stats: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/player_locator_results.jsp?playerLocator=bonds His earlier numbers were solid but generally inconsistent and not staggering; until 2001 when they EXPLODED. Now I am not saying that he did or he didn't but look at the evidence an tell me what you think. P.S. terror, I thought the sarcasm was great, you had me going for a minute.

posted by mcstan13 at 02:16 PM on September 28, 2005

How is this a witch hunt? Mark McGwire didn't have to pledge before Congress and the world that he'd be redirecting his personal charity towards the issue of steroid abuse. The fact that it was an empty promise seems worthy of reporting. What a piece of work that guy is.`

posted by rcade at 02:38 PM on September 28, 2005

Selig could clean up the game if he wasnt an idiot! Users should be banned for life on the first offense and have all of their numbers erased from the books, like they never even played in the majors.

posted by God of Thunder at 03:32 PM on September 28, 2005

How about guys who have been caught scuffing baseballs? Same punishment?

posted by tron7 at 03:41 PM on September 28, 2005

Then alchohal's a drug too. And I'm pretty sure alchohal has hurt more people than steroids. Why don't you climb on your soapbox for prohibition? Throw steroid users in jail? For what? They haven't hurt anyone but themselves and some baseball fan's pride in the game.

posted by tron7 at 03:58 PM on September 28, 2005

Alcohol has certainly damaged a lot of lives, but there are a couple crucial differences between a bottle of Jim Beam and steroids. The obvious one is that alcohol is readily available for purchase everywhere, and steroids are illegal everywhere. I have also yet to see studies that demonstrably prove alcohol -- or cigarettes -- or mary-jane -- are performance enhancing drugs the way stanazonol or HGH is.

posted by the red terror at 04:03 PM on September 28, 2005

Hey I'm all for alcohol being illegal myself seeing as I quit drinking years ago. Also as Red Terror mentioned, Alcohol is still legal in this country while Drugs are not and I'm pretty sure 'roids are part of that catagory. All these things smoking included {which I am a smoker} are harmful in many ways often to the extreme, but the one that is very Illegal is the juice. We don't know who the past users were, but We do know who they are now. That's unfortunate due to the fact that many used something then too. Babe Ruth was a monster alcoholic and that may have enhanced his play, but what can you do. My point being is that there is, was and never will be a soap box installed before me with this subject. Just knowing the difference between what's right and what's wrong is all anyone needs.

posted by melcarek69 at 04:22 PM on September 28, 2005

Here's something else to think about when it comes to Bonds. He had never broke over 50 HR before he broke the record. His career high was 49. What a coincidence. Talk about a career year.

posted by aztlan78 at 04:35 PM on September 28, 2005

To clarify some of the pretty wildly inaccurate statements in this thread, steroids are, in fact, legal. They're used everyday by doctors all over the world. Steroid use by non-licensed people is illegal. Barry Bonds has never failed a drug test in his career. He's also a far more complete ballplayer than Mark McGwire ever was. McGwire was, by many accounts and my own beliefs, a steroid injecting freak show, that's why he refused to comment and why he's not going to go and be the poster boy for anti-steroid campaigns. He's well aware that it would make him an incredible hypocrit. But also keep in mind that steroids weren't banned substances when he was playing the game. Now they are but people don't and won't realize that he played under a different set of rules and regulations. T$PORT4lawschool, who are "the rest of them out there"? Anyone you think has used steroids? Nice litmus test. Because they fail a drug test? What about the people that game the piss test? What about people that have false positives (as is inherent in any testing procedure)? Do they get banned immediately and then have to fight their way back? The slippery slope gets very steep really quick.

posted by fenriq at 05:02 PM on September 28, 2005

Thank you. Let's put some if not more than some of the blame on the people who have the greatest influence on a childs life...The Parents! Blaming a ballplayer or entertainer for the death of a child is scapegoating. Just ask OZZY and JUDAS PRIEST back in the 80's. We can't go on blaming JUST the people in the news. We have to blame the ones who are at the forefront of a childs early life and development. Stop looking for the outside problems and look hard at who is usually to blame.

posted by melcarek69 at 05:20 PM on September 28, 2005

And the fact that Barry had never hit a home run longer than 450 feet before the 2000 season (when he turned 36) and since then has hit at least 21 homers of 450 feet or longer -- hey, that's just a pure coincidence. This is almost as good as the "He's got a big head!" approach. Did you know that each stadium has it's own way of measuring home run distance? Did you know that how tight a ball is wound will affect how far it flies? Did you know that Barry uses a different wood for his baseball bats since 2000? Did you know that bat handles (and the overall weight of the bat) are smaller than they have ever been in history? Did you know that comparing just one player's results without showing how it compares to the rest of the league is an abuse of statistics? But hey, I'm sure it's just a purely coincidental you didn't bring up this information when you made your backhanded accusation. You buy that roids only hurts players well that is about as ignorant as it gets. No, it's ignorant to assume that if a player uses steroids, he's hurting anyone else. Nobody else's health is affected. And if you say "What about the children?" and if you think that the biggest influence on a teenager using steroids is the fact that a professional athlete might be using them, that's ignorant. I'm sure such things as peer pressure, poor parenting, or the barrage of television ads that tell him that this drug or that will help him with whatever problem he has, are more influential than some athlete he's never met before.

posted by grum@work at 06:06 PM on September 28, 2005

I'd forgive the guy if he did one confessional "steroids shrink your nuts and give you cancer" commercial. Can you wait a couple more years? There is no way he's going to do anything that might (further) harm his spot in the HOF. Besides, it might seem a bit silly for him to do a commercial like that if he hasn't actually suffered any severe side-effects. "Steroids will shrink your nuts and give you cancer. Well, except for me. I'm actually doing all right, especially with the millions I made during my baseball career."

posted by grum@work at 06:50 PM on September 28, 2005

As one of the Senator's in todays hearing mildly put it " If someone breaks Hank Aarons record, it's not a question of an asterik next to his name, it should probrably be an RX next to his name."

posted by volfire at 06:53 PM on September 28, 2005

Senators are so clever.

posted by cl at 08:51 PM on September 28, 2005

mcstan13 wrote: Barry Bonds told a grand jury he did not do roids and then was caught using the "cream." This is incorrect. According to leaked testimony to the grand jury, Bonds denied knowingly using illegal substances, but admitted to using products provided by his personal trainer (Greg Anderson). He was never "caught" using anything; in 2003 when he was using, there was no test for the designer anabolic agent in the "clear" and the "cream." Subtle points, perhaps, but it's good to begin your argument with the right facts.

posted by Amateur at 09:59 PM on September 28, 2005

I find this entire discussion to be silly. The reason kids so steroids is to enhance their chance of going professional in whatever sport they play. This is driven by our society's insistance on paying millions to watch these people play professionally. If you don't understand that this is insanity, the average school teacher nationally earns less than 30k per year. A new serviceman or woman at the rank of E-1 through E-3 qualifies for food stamps if they are married with a child. The real point isn't who is or isn't juicing. The question is why do we idolize these people who in reality, add nothing valuable to the society as a whole except for pitting us against one another when our favorite teams play each other.

posted by Army_MP at 10:53 PM on September 28, 2005

Don't misunderstand my feelings, I love a good game as much as any red-blooded American should. I just try to keep myself grounded. Andru Jones testifying about the Gold Club in Atlanta wasn't an important event in my life. McGuire juicing, Jeremy Shockey being homophobic Barry Bonds running for class president. I just think there are better things to talk about. If St Louis wants McGuire to speak who the hell cares. It is only important because we give credence to it. We cant complain about sensationalism when we chase after it like starving hounds.

posted by Army_MP at 11:30 PM on September 28, 2005

If someone breaks Hank Aarons record, it's not a question of an asterik next to his name, it should probrably be an RX next to his name." ...because if anyone ever breaks any record in any sport in any way, they must be cheating. Especially if the record was set by a person that was really respected, back in the days. I wonder what they'll say when Alex Rodriguez rolls by Hank Aaron's number in about 7-8 years...

posted by grum@work at 01:45 AM on September 29, 2005

grum> Where do you get that factual information supplied by a baseball statistical company is the same thing as the "he's got a big head" argument? That is an absurd comparison -- one based upon measurable statistics; the other simple petty emotion -- and I do suspect just a little naivete and gullibility and a Pollyannish lack of skepticism. Sometimes when I see fanboys sticking their heads in the sand about this, it reminds me a lot of macho metalhead beerdrinkin' goodoleboys who recoiled in shock and denial when Judas Priest's Rob Halford and Queen's Freddie Mercury were revealed to be gay men. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Anyone with a Grade 5 education could see pinups of those two guys on their bedroom and garage walls and easily tell for themselves -- like, c'mon, they're practically screaming in your face about their, ahem, closeted lifestyles -- but even after exposure the fanboys stuck fingers in their ears and denied-denied-denied. "Nope, don't wanna hear it. The mascara and lipstick and costumes picked up off the bathroom floor of Plato's Retreat were just for show. And besides, where's the proof, huh? It can't be true. In fact, until you get me clearly visible video and confidential proctology files and dildo's with DNA, it'll never be true. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that stuff." All statistical evidence indicates Barry Bonds had a massive power surge at an advanced age when most athletes have already retired. Your explanations, well, maybe the balls are more tightly wound at the Rawlings factory in Haiti, or maybe the maple trees used to hand craft Barry's bats were struck by lightning and later injected with steroids, seem to me a bit of a reach, especially when more likely and reasonable explanations need to be investigated. Maybe is a freak. Or maybe -- possibly -- perhaps even probably -- there is a much simpler explanation. Maybe Barry is a liar. And maybe all those people who have claimed to have witnessed Bonds' applying steroids and having seen his grand jury testimony aren't liars and perjurers. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck... Ockham's razor, dude.

posted by the red terror at 07:32 AM on September 29, 2005

The quick answer would be that if you're bad enough off that you need to be prescribed steroids as part of your recovery, then playing pro baseball probably isn't at the top of your to-do list. But that's a good question, drevl. I suspect that regardless of what the fine/suspension system winds up being, someone in that situation may come along and challenge it for some kind of exemption & clarification.

posted by chicobangs at 08:14 AM on September 29, 2005

grum@work, I would agree with you, BUT McGwire used to crank 500 footers all the time prior to 2000. Therefore it was possible. Also, I have a hard time believing that the basic physics of baseball swayed so dramatically that he went from NO 450+ footers for 14 years to 21 in 5 years. I will agree with your logic on physics when the earth stops revolving around the sun. Also, if Rodgriguez or Pujols or whoever passes Aaron's record without being roided to the hilt I say more power to em. I don't like A-rod, but if he wins it righteously I am all about it.

posted by mcstan13 at 08:54 AM on September 29, 2005

grum> Where do you get that factual information supplied by a baseball statistical company is the same thing as the "he's got a big head" argument? That is an absurd comparison -- one based upon measurable statistics; the other simple petty emotion -- and I do suspect just a little naivete and gullibility and a Pollyannish lack of skepticism. Jeez. You like to skim over what I wrote and just make insulting accusations. I said that having a stand-alone statistic (#HR > 450ft by Bonds) is about as convincing an argument as "he's got a big head". And then, in great detail, I explained why a discrete statistic like that is worthless. Nonetheless, you proceed to ignore the explanation about WHY that statistic (on its own) is useless and launch into some (frighteningly bizarre) analogy about makeup, rock and roll, and gay men. maybe the maple trees used to hand craft Barry's bats were struck by lightning and later injected with steroids, seem to me a bit of a reach, I never said that. I said that he was one of the first players to switch to maple bats in 2000. If you want to have a decent conversation about the topic, don't make silly statements like that. It demeans the rest of your argument and makes it hard to take seriously. But at some point one has to think in terms of Occam's Razor - he is in all likelyhood a big-time juicer. This is the funniest part. I've already stated that I think Bonds used some sort of P.E.D., but everyone assumes I'm some "fanboy" that thinks he's always been clean. My arguments have always been against the accusations based on lousy arguments, weak statistics and lack of real evidence (failed tests = 0).

posted by grum@work at 11:35 AM on September 29, 2005

However, if a person needs steroids for medical reasons, is he automatically banned from baseball? They're not automatically "banned from baseball" if they take them without medical reasons. A first-time positive test gets you a 10-day suspension, and there is no number of offenses that mandate a player's being banned from the game, although a fifth positive test makes a player "subject to discipline determined by the commissioner" -- which I suppose could mean, five strikes yer out. That aside, though, I went looking for a copy of the policy to see if a medical exception exists and couldn't find it (the policy, I mean, not the exception). In other sports, however (most notably Olympic sports), having a doctor's note buys you nothing. There have been cases of athletes with asthma who had to choose between taking a drug for their condition or being able to compete. The line in Olympic sports is incredibly hard; MLB's regs are very namby-pamby in comparison, and it wouldn't greatly surprise me if you got a free pass based on a doctor's note, a note from your mom, or the dog eating your homework.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:21 PM on September 29, 2005

Occam's Razor would NOT point to Barry being a juicer. Occam's Razor asks which is the simplest answer to a given question. In this instance the question is: How has Barry Bonds hit so many home runs and seemingly gained in strength and power as he's aged? The simplest answer is not that he's injected undetectable steroids for his entire career. The simplest solution is that he busted his ass to keep himself in top physical shape, trained his eye to identify strikes and balls and has phenomenal hand/eye coordination as well as superior genetics for baseball. And don't confuse simplest with most likely, they're not one and the same. Yes, it is likely that Bonds has used steroids, aside from the "clear" but he's not been caught ever using them so leaping to that conclusion involves a logical leap that's not supported by the known facts (not strongly held opinions of his guilt).

posted by fenriq at 01:39 PM on September 29, 2005

So Occam's Razor would suggest that the simplest answer is that Barry Bonds is superhuman? You and I disagree as to the use of this device.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:11 PM on September 29, 2005

There may be suspicion, but with out proof, are we not innocent until proven guilty? Yes -- in a court of law, which this is not. I understand your point, but please, let's leave "innocent until proven guilty" out of it. That's a standard that applies to a criminal court, and drug-testing has different standards of guilt.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:44 PM on September 29, 2005

KG, who exactly are you talking to? Whoever it is, I'm pretty sure your rant is misdirected.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:58 PM on September 29, 2005

Bond tested positive, and the HOF would vote him in, but not the Mac? There may be suspicion, but with out proof, are we not innocent until proven guilty? Key word 'PROVEN'. Court of public opinion differs of course. I would hope the HOF would not allow themselves to look like a bunch of asses by letting a known roider like Bonds in the hall, and not Mac. If that’s the case, Rafi Palm is a shoo-in. I don't even know where to start with this one. First off reread my original post and get your rant headed in the right direction, then try to get your facts straight. What has not been "proven" about Bonds has been well documented on SportsFi and I won't waste the space repeating it. I should however note that Bonds has never failed a steroid test. The earlier post was just an explanation as to why some Hall of Fame voters would vote against McGwire, while still voting for Bonds. Both players are just as guilty in the court of public opinion and just as clean in actual tests. Palmeiro on the other hand did fail an MLB sanctioned steroid test, which carries a much different significance. Just so I am clear, you’re saying that a known riod user, who has broken MBL record Just so you are clear they are speculated 'roid users who have broken MLB records.

posted by bigrobbieb at 05:38 PM on September 29, 2005

To say "Drugs are bad, mmkay" puts a whole lot of awful things in with a ton of genuinely beneficial, legal and useful tools that a professional athlete uses to stay in the starting lineup over a 162-game season of heavy and constant stress and exertion. It's an easy lie, and I see people doing it all over this thread. Right, but chico, to be fair, most people who are taking part in this debate now came to it through the presence of "drugs" in popular professional sports...and in the popular professional sports, at least in the USA, there have been a couple of distinct eras of "drug" concern. The early era dealt with illegal recreational drugs; the current era deals with harmful performance-enhancing substances that may or may not always be illegal. These were different problems, people used these drugs for different reasons...but they're lumped together under umbrella "drug policies". Clearly, that's a bad idea: it makes the policy very complex, blurs the issues in people's minds (players, fans, everybody) about why is it a bad idea to use these substances (which substances are we talking about?), presents the league (or whoever) with very different sanctions that they can impose depending on the "drug", and results in exactly the "Drugs are bad, mmkay" reaction that you're talking about. Drug policies need to be simplified, and it would probably be best to not even call them "drug policies". As regards something like MLB, it would perhaps make a lot more sense to have a set of "doing illegal things" policies (from date rape to snorting coke), and a set of "taking banned things that are perhaps good for your batting average but bad for you" policies. Only then are you going to get any kind of clarity of thought from the general public.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:34 PM on September 29, 2005