11/21/24
March 24, 2006
Bonds to sue "Game of Shadows" authors, publishers: What I find most interesting is that Bonds is not suing over the claims that he used performance-enhancing drugs, but over the fact that the leaked grand jury testimony the authors base many of their claims on is "illegally obtained."
posted by The_Black_Hand to baseball at 08:06 AM - 70 comments
Also, I feel the need to apologize for the forthcoming maelstrom. Mea culpa.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:10 AM on March 24, 2006
Look, Bonds knows he's guilty, and he knows the American public knows he's guilty. Filing a lawsuit like this is not surprising in the least... your average idiot will hear "lawsuit filed by Bonds" and, failing to note that he never challenges the allegations made in the book, think "well, hot damn, he must be innocent after all." (on preview) *grabs chips, opens salsa, settles in for spectacular view of forthcoming maelstrom*
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 08:16 AM on March 24, 2006
"We said this a thousand times -- that we cannot speak on this matter because it's an ongoing legal process," team President Peter Magowan told Reuters. Now there's a guy who wipes his brow every time another court document gets filed... as long as the Giants aren't named... Does anybody else think chips are an odd snack choice for a maelstrom?
posted by BullpenPro at 08:40 AM on March 24, 2006
What are we in, the twilight zone? I swear this was posted yesterday afternoon. I come back the next day and it's been replaced by a different but similar post. Sigh. Now I have to do my work all over again... /removes breakables from shelves /unplugs electrical devices /pushes furniture into the corners of the room /lays down plastic tarp to collect blood and other fluids Okay, we're ready.
posted by grum@work at 08:47 AM on March 24, 2006
Great, he will be forced to address the steroid issue in open court if it gets that far. His lawyer gave bad advice allowing him to bring this forward. Barry really is a dope.
posted by mikemora at 09:16 AM on March 24, 2006
Great, he will be forced to address the steroid issue in open court if it gets that far. His lawyer gave bad advice allowing him to bring this forward. Actually, no. If they had filed a lawsuit for libel, then he would have been forced to make a sworn deposition about his steroid use/non-use. Since they're only suing regarding information obtained illegally, Barry won't be required to testify. In other words: they're not contesting the accuracy of the book, they're contesting how the information in it was obtained.
posted by rocketman at 09:19 AM on March 24, 2006
It is certainly an interesting legal turn of events. Filing a libel suit was pretty much out for Bonds. It doesn't matter if the stuff is false, but you have to show that the authors knew it was false and published it anyway (or at least recklessly disregarded the truth). So, what other legal action is available? Unfair competition (pdf)seems like a great choice. Bonds would only have to show that it was somehow a business practice that was against public policy, immoral, unethical, etc. While the publishing of secret grand jury testimony is not illegal (though it is at least debatable), the very nature of the grand jury system is dependent upon its secrecy. I think it is unethical behavior, but there is debate. Anyway, the upshot is that if Bonds were to prevail, they couldn't make profits off the book, which seems to be a nice touch. But, the litigation in no way would need to address the substance of the allegations.
posted by bperk at 09:19 AM on March 24, 2006
If filing the lawsuit does not quell the debate or clear Bonds name concerning steriods, then what is really the point?
posted by yzelda4045 at 09:26 AM on March 24, 2006
If filing the lawsuit does not quell the debate or clear Bonds name concerning steriods, then what is really the point? It's perception. 90% of the people will read that Bonds has filed a lawsuit against the people who wrote the book. They'll assume it's because he's contesting the contents. They'll be wrong, but that's what they'll think. Therefore, they'll be (subconsciously) casting doubt on the validity of the Bonds/steroids connection.
posted by grum@work at 09:35 AM on March 24, 2006
i just hope it goes as far as him actually having to speak under oath, so we can see how full of shit he is. My bad, he'll probably go the mcgwire way "i dont wanna talk about the past".
posted by chuy at 09:36 AM on March 24, 2006
This is what all interested in the situation have been waiting for. Filing a civil suit, should it actually reach a courtroom, will allow lawyers for the authors to call Mr. Barry as a witness and grill him on anything and everything they choose under the threat of perjury under oath. Bond's lawyer is doing Barry a great injustice it seems in that they can't stop the book from getting out even if they could come up with a decision stopping the authors from profiting. The question of having illegally obtained grand jury material should be a criminal situation, investigated by the Feds against whom the crime was committed.
posted by jaygolf at 09:44 AM on March 24, 2006
In a suit of this nature I do not believe Bonds would ever have to take the stand. And while Bonds will never contest the validity of the findings and cannot stop the release of the book, by hitting the authors where it really hurts the most - the wallet - he may feel somehow vindicated and content.
posted by MW12 at 09:47 AM on March 24, 2006
Barry really is a dope(r). Sorry, couldn't help myself...
posted by wingnut4life at 09:50 AM on March 24, 2006
90% of the people will read that Bonds has filed a lawsuit against the people who wrote the book. Well look at the headline in the linked article for example: "Bonds to sue over book detailing steroid use" I can see why they would think that if they just skimmed. So, I'm wondering legally speaking, is this a better case to highlight the conflict between speech/press and this "unfair competition" statute in California then a case like Nike v. Kasky where the speech was held (at the State Supreme Court level, I believe) to be of a purely commercial nature and therefore less protected. I know he is talking profits but he is basically using a consumer protection statute to attempt to suppress the book. Why use an injunction/TRO? If he wanted them to have the profits stripped from the book isn't his remedy really just a monetary one? The injunction/TRO is really only about freezing the book and not about the profits. (Although it seems that he is alleging that the publication and sale of the book, taken in part from "illegally" obtained source material, is the offending business practice). I liked this line in the article: "After planning an initial print run of 50,000, Gotham Books boosted the number to 248,000 in response to strong interest, Johnson said. The lawsuit could bring even more publicity." They should run off 500,000 copies now at least. Did they really think it would only sell 50,000 copies to begin with? Seems low.
posted by chris2sy at 10:06 AM on March 24, 2006
Filing a civil suit, should it actually reach a courtroom, will allow lawyers for the authors to call Mr. Barry as a witness and grill him on anything and everything they choose under the threat of perjury under oath. No it won't. Did you read the comments above? They're suing re: how the information was obtained. Barry Bonds is nobody's expert witness about the US legal system. At least, not yet.
posted by yerfatma at 10:11 AM on March 24, 2006
Bonds is filing a lawsuit? Well, only an innocent man would do THAT!
posted by Desert Dog at 10:20 AM on March 24, 2006
Sports Law Blog has a take on this. Mr. McCann's opinion is not too different from everybody here, but his legal perspective is interesting: ... the California Unfair Competition Law is the state's most frequently used consumer protection statute, with the number of related cases by both private and governmental plaintiffs increasing from year to year. The law is especially popular because, unlike other unfair and deceptive practices statutes, intent is irrelevant, as a ... plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant actually intended to injure anyone.
posted by Amateur at 10:35 AM on March 24, 2006
Why use an injunction/TRO? The purpose of the law is to prevent defendants from retaining ill-gotten gains or profits. It is impossible to know how much money is going to be involved in the sale of the books, so they couldn't specify a monetary amount. The TRO does not prevent the sale of the book, it would prevent the profits from being kept by the defendants. So, I'm wondering legally speaking, is this a better case to highlight the conflict between speech/press and this "unfair competition" statute in California then a case like Nike v. Kasky where the speech was held (at the State Supreme Court level, I believe) to be of a purely commercial nature and therefore less protected. I know he is talking profits but he is basically using a consumer protection statute to attempt to suppress the book. I don't think Bonds is at all trying to prevent the sale of the book. It is a first amendment issue only in that, if successful, there would limits as to what sources could be used. It would open newspapers up for liability for publishing information from a source who shares information that he/she is legally-prevented from sharing.
posted by bperk at 10:40 AM on March 24, 2006
They should run off 500,000 copies now at least. Did they really think it would only sell 50,000 copies to begin with? Seems low. Are there still 500,000 literate people in the United States?
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:46 AM on March 24, 2006
What did you say, frazer? I can't read...
posted by wingnut4life at 11:00 AM on March 24, 2006
Are there still 500,000 literate people in the United States? There must be a thousand right here in good ol' SpoFi. Only 499,000 to go: (No purchase necessary to enter. Open only to legal residents of the 32 States and DC who are at least 18 years of age. Void where home schooling is the norm.)
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 11:38 AM on March 24, 2006
SpoFi has 11,000 members -- and only a thousand are literate Americans? I wonder if that is more reflective of the geographic diversity of this site, or the number of illiterate Americans who find their way here...?
posted by BullpenPro at 11:46 AM on March 24, 2006
It's perception. 90% of the people will read that Bonds has filed a lawsuit against the people who wrote the book. They'll assume it's because he's contesting the contents. I dont' think that's the point at all. It's strictly payback. He (rightly) does not want these guys from profiting from this book. The book in its entirety is based on illegally obtained information. If someone breaks into your home and gets some information from your filecabinet, should they be able to sell it to the outside world and make a profit? I said in at least 5 other sportsfilter threads that this information that this information was based on (and most of the criticism leavied against him for steroid use) is all based on LEAKED GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. That is ILLEGAL. All this "clear cream" information we have, we have absolutely no right to have. It was sealed testimony that 1) should not be available to anyone 2) can't be commented on by those involved 3) the testimony itself can't even really be confirmed or denied by Bonds or Giambi These guys are getting what they deserve. They should absolutely lose their case and hopefully won't see a dime of this money. I don't care whether Bonds did steroids or not, these guys should not profit for illegal activities
posted by bdaddy at 11:56 AM on March 24, 2006
It is a first amendment issue only in that, if successful, there would limits as to what sources could be used. Well, I think that is a pretty serious issue. They (the Courts) need to decide where they are going to draw the "consumer protection" line here in regard to speech/press freedoms. That part is touched on in the Stroock Article that you linked above at pages 28-30 (pretty good overview of the whole statute and its operation too, by the way). You have a cause of action where you have a remedy for a situation where you might not really have an "actual" Plaintiff, a harm suffered in the traditional sense, and no need to show intent. A little too broad for my taste, but I'm sure it has its legitimate usages. The book in its entirety is based on illegally obtained information. I would say in part, because I doubt that the interviews were "illegally obtained." I could see targeting the source but not the SF Chronicle, SI, the publishers and authors. Careful how you define "illegally obtained" also, unless you think that every source for a news story gets its information from "legal" or "approved" channels.
posted by chris2sy at 12:11 PM on March 24, 2006
I swear this was posted yesterday afternoon. It was. I would like to know what happened to it. I put a lot of work into the post I put there.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:14 PM on March 24, 2006
I don't care whether Bonds did steroids or not, these guys should not profit for illegal activities. I'll say it now, so somebody doesn't use it later and then try to act all high and mighty about it... "Why not? Bonds profitted from his illegal activities." Careful how you define "illegally obtained" also, unless you think that every source for a news story gets its information from "legal" or "approved" channels. Here is where I draw my (very thin) line on this subject: If a newspaper/book reports information that was given to them by a source that acquired it illegally, then I have no problem with them publishing that information as long as a few points are made:
- That they acknowledge that the information was obtained from a source who acquired it illegally.
- They do not pay a penny for that information, either before the acquisition or after it is delivered.
- If the source does provide the information illegally, then the newspaper/book does NOT have the right to withhold this information from the police if requested.
posted by grum@work at 12:19 PM on March 24, 2006
I didn't know we had so many F. Lee Bailey wannabes in this forum.
posted by joromu at 12:22 PM on March 24, 2006
Objection, Your Honor! Joromu claims he was not aware of the quality of Spofi's posters. Therefore his entire contribution is irrelevant. Objection Substained!
posted by Termite at 12:33 PM on March 24, 2006
If a newspaper/book reports information that was given to them by a source that acquired it illegally, then I have no problem with them publishing that information as long as a few points are made The difference may be though that the act of giving it is illegal because the source of the information may have legally obtained the information. That makes the reporter more of a party to a crime than just a fortunate recipient of the information. My line would be to prevent the publication of grand jury testimony. There is an overriding public interest in that testimony being private. If grand jury testimony isn't going to be kept secret, then people should be able to plead the 5th, have their lawyers present, and present their side of the issue. Otherwise a completely biased and unfair glimpse is the only thing that anyone sees.
posted by bperk at 12:36 PM on March 24, 2006
Notwithstanding the fact that Victor Conte has also said that much of their claims are pure fabrications. And just because he's filed one lawsuit against the book, does not mean he can't file another disputing its claims if he chooses. grum, can you please direct me to the news story that discusses Bonds' failed drug test from the MLB? Oh that's right, it doesn't exist.
posted by fenriq at 12:37 PM on March 24, 2006
LEAKED GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. That is ILLEGAL. No, it's not. Witnessess before a Grand Jury are not sworn to secrecy and are indeed allowed to discuss their testimony with whomever they wish. They received information from a witness, correct?
posted by tselson at 12:40 PM on March 24, 2006
They received information from a witness, correct? Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield did not release their own testimony. Therefore, someone else released it -- that is illegal.
posted by bperk at 12:43 PM on March 24, 2006
grum, can you please direct me to the news story that discusses Bonds' failed drug test from the MLB? Oh that's right, it doesn't exist. i realize you think you're awful smart and everything, but you're picking a fight with the wrong person. also, if the case swings on an "overriding public interest," the two things being weighed here would be the 1st amendment (and maybe making an example of a steroid user) v grand jury testimony secrecy? my guess is that the courts will go with the latter, but i doubt they'll grant the TRO on the book's distribution and profits.
posted by ninjavshippo at 12:50 PM on March 24, 2006
someone else released it -- that is illegal. No, his ex-girlfriend did and that is not illegal.
posted by tselson at 01:01 PM on March 24, 2006
No, his ex-girlfriend did and that is not illegal. She can discuss her own testimony all she wants. I am talking about this, this, and this -- all illegally leaked grand jury testimony.
posted by bperk at 01:12 PM on March 24, 2006
bperk, I'm sure you are going to be correct. For now the only source listed in the article is his ex-girlfriend. Seeing that the authors of this book are the same guys that wrote all of those articles, I'm sure their mud slinging won't be restricted only to what the ex had to say. Are you sure about Sheffield? He really seems to have run his mouth a lot!
posted by tselson at 01:44 PM on March 24, 2006
From the SI article: In our reporting on the BALCO story for the San Francisco Chronicle, we obtained transcripts of the secret grand jury testimony of Barry Bonds and seven other prominent professional athletes. Sealed material we reviewed also included unredacted versions of affidavits filed by the BALCO investigators; e-mail between BALCO owner Victor Conte and several athletes and coaches regarding the use and distribution of drugs; a list of evidence seized from the BALCO storage locker; and a document prepared to brief participants in the raid on BALCO.
posted by bperk at 02:07 PM on March 24, 2006
ninjav, no, I'm not picking a fight and yes, I do know that I'm awfully smart, big whoop, a high percentage of the people here are awfully smart. I'm simply pointing out that Bonds has never failed a drug test in his life and yet everyone (including the supposedly unbiased sports media machine) has already tried him and prejudged him guilty.
posted by fenriq at 02:23 PM on March 24, 2006
i was just pointing out that grum has actually been one of the few level-headed defenders of bonds (seems like an oxymoron now that i type it). bonds never has failed a drug test and never will, but i believe it's because he is/has taken supplements MLB does not test for (i.e. HGH). and who says the sports media machine is unbiased? he made his own bed by being a dick to the media, now he wants a fair shake in his time of need? i have no sympathy for barry lamar and wish he would take his blemish on the game into retirement
posted by ninjavshippo at 02:28 PM on March 24, 2006
I'm simply pointing out that Bonds has never failed a drug test in his life Are you talking about the private drug tests conducted by his own doctors, or the MLB test that didn't include the check for the designer steroids Bonds was taking. You have to know what you are testing for, and the MLB test covered a very narrow field of limited scope. The California Attorney General has already stated that no crime was committed by the reporters that used grand jury documents and testimony leaked to them. The crime was committed by the person who actually gave the material to them.
posted by irunfromclones at 02:44 PM on March 24, 2006
I'll wait for rcade to back me up here, but as a former reporter, I believe if someone chose to show me sealed grand-jury testimony and I then choose to use it in a story, the legal wrongdoing is on the person who gave me the information. My feet be held to the fire to give up my sources (never, biatch!), but I don't think I'm in any big trouble. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and I just never got hammered by the feds or a lawsuit.
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:04 PM on March 24, 2006
A judge today denied Barry's motion.
posted by bperk at 03:05 PM on March 24, 2006
My feet be held to the fire to give up my sources (never, biatch!), but I don't think I'm in any big trouble. i think you're on solid ground here wfrazerjr. take for example the judith miller thing. she didn't go to jail for not giving up her sources. she wasn't the one who leaked. she went to jail for contempt of court. a quote from bperk's story: "Judge James Warren said free speech protections shielded the defendants from such accusations and that he thought Bonds' lawsuit had little chance of success." weak sauce.
posted by ninjavshippo at 03:22 PM on March 24, 2006
I'll wait for rcade to back me up here, but as a former reporter, I believe if someone chose to show me sealed grand-jury testimony and I then choose to use it in a story, the legal wrongdoing is on the person who gave me the information. That's right. The law only applies to the people involved.
posted by bperk at 03:22 PM on March 24, 2006
take for example the judith miller thing. she didn't go to jail for not giving up her sources. she went to jail for contempt of court. She went to jail for contempt of court because she was called before a grand jury to give up her source and refused to do so. There is no reporter-source privilege under federal law. So, while fraze couldn't go to jail for publishing grand jury testimony, if a grand jury was called and he was asked who gave him the testimoney and he refused to give that information, he could wind up in jail.
posted by bperk at 03:26 PM on March 24, 2006
The restraining order has already been denied with comments from the judge he doesn't think the suit has a chance. Judge Denies Bonds Initial Bid
posted by scottypup at 03:31 PM on March 24, 2006
grum, can you please direct me to the news story that discusses Bonds' failed drug test from the MLB? Oh that's right, it doesn't exist. The reason that someone said you are picking a fight with the wrong person (me) is because I've been accused of being a "Bonds apologist" in the past. My defence of some baseless statistical accusations of his performance has marked me (right or wrong) as someone who will defend Bonds with great vigor. In fact, in the past, I've made the same statement you have.
posted by grum@work at 05:08 PM on March 24, 2006
I don't know what is sadder...the fact that bonds could have had a hall of fame career had he not juiced up, or the fact that the commissioners are protecting their poster boy while pissing all over Ruth and Aaron
posted by FozzFest at 05:49 PM on March 24, 2006
grum, that's why I wasn't picking a fight with you. I think I actually cite statistics that you originally provided about Bonds power numbers not dropping off after 2001, when everyone else's did. I guess I just got a little ahead of myself because I'm tired of the presumption of his guilt. irunfromclones, I thought I was pretty clear. Barry Bonds has never failed a drug test administered to him by Major League Baseball. Why would he be having his own doctors testing him?
posted by fenriq at 05:58 PM on March 24, 2006
with comments from the judge he doesn't think the suit has a chance Could the lawsuit be a front to try to force the reporters to reveal the sources that turned over the secret grand jury testimony, and then potentially pursue them on some claim? Or even an attempt to get the reporters locked up for contempt for refusing to identify who provided the information illegally? I think everyone suspects that it was the prosecutors who leaked the testimony, because it is a typical procedure for them and law enforcement officials to leak information that they know should not be. (Witness the whole Gretzsky fiasco with investigators leaking that he knew information about the gambling ring and then indicating that there was no evidence that he did). Reporters may have rights, but apparently grand jury witnesses do not. Why would anyone testify to a grand jury knowing that their testimony could be leaked? Except of course, that they must testify under threat of the prosecutor (who will likely leak the information) throwing them in jail for contempt.
posted by graymatters at 06:12 PM on March 24, 2006
With all the unauthorized biographies and "controversial" non-fiction books over the years, many of which deal with far heavier issues than a ballplayer taking illegal drugs, it is ridiculous to think this thing would ever see the light of day in a courtroom. Of course Bonds' stance suggests the book is true. Of course grand jury testimony should never be released. What I want to know is, what's Selig going to do about Bonds' (presumable) records?
posted by Pablo Trojan at 06:45 PM on March 24, 2006
I don't think the reporters could get themselves in trouble for reporting leaked testimony, though a judge might hold them in contempt demanding the name of the leaker.
posted by rcade at 07:01 PM on March 24, 2006
the fact that the commissioners are protecting their poster boy while pissing all over Ruth and Aaron I don't see how Ruth and Aaron are being "pissed on" during all this. Even if Bonds passes Ruth and Aaron in the HR list, it doesn't diminish what they've done. No one felt Ruth was "pissed on" when Aaron passed him, why should anyone feel the same about Aaron if/when Bonds passes him? Great players of different eras only lose their luster because of the passage of time, not because of their records being broken. Ty Cobb had his hit record broken by a dishonourable player, but it hasn't tarnished his legacy as one of the greatest players ever. Lou Gehrig had his games-played streak broken by a modern player, but it hasn't tarnished his legacy as one of the greatest players ever.
posted by grum@work at 07:51 AM on March 25, 2006
I see your point grum, but the fact of the matter is that major league baseball will honor the record as being broken when it happens....i think there should be an asterisk next to bonds future record...if maris gets one because he broke ruth's total for more games, shouldn't steroid users get the same exact treatment...that's what im implying, not the fact that ruth or aaron are not legends(anybody who still wants to argue that bonds might be innocent need to look at baseball cards of bonds, comparing 1987 to 2003)
posted by FozzFest at 12:21 PM on March 25, 2006
Asterisks serve only to diminish the legacy of the sport itself. (And I am aware that the Maris' asterisk is a myth.)
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:27 PM on March 25, 2006
anybody who still wants to argue that bonds might be innocent need to look at baseball cards of bonds, comparing 1987 to 2003 Anybody that wants to argue about Bonds' steroid use should really find a much better argument to use than physical body size.
posted by grum@work at 05:26 PM on March 25, 2006
Why?
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:18 PM on March 25, 2006
Grum if you don't mind (and I'm not picking a fight or anything, I just want to know), could you explain to me your stance on the Barry Bonds issue? I've gathered that you usually stick up for Bonds but I'm not sure whether you think he is innocent, or what he did, ect. If you could tell me I'd appreciate it.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:31 AM on March 26, 2006
Who has ever in baseball history increased his home run totals as he got a lot older? I don't care if you agree at all, really, but name one person who has so increased his rate of productivity in his older age...dating from 1998 Also if asterisks diminish the legacy of a steroid user having the home run record, than bonds should not have it...give it to josh gibson
posted by FozzFest at 01:03 PM on March 26, 2006
Grum if you don't mind (and I'm not picking a fight or anything, I just want to know), could you explain to me your stance on the Barry Bonds issue? I've gathered that you usually stick up for Bonds but I'm not sure whether you think he is innocent, or what he did, ect. If you could tell me I'd appreciate it.
posted by St.Louis Sandi at 02:19 PM on March 26, 2006
The asterisk was next to Roger Maris for years. If Bonds makes it, and that is no guarantee, there ALSO has to be an asterisk next to his name. He is such a pampered egotistical player and the league protects him. I wonder how Drysdale, Gibson or others would have treated someone who stood over the plate and complained if someone threw inside. To Barry, he is bigger than the game. We need to let him know that he is not.
posted by Tuna at 02:55 PM on March 26, 2006
IMHO, there will be no asterisk next to Barry Bonds in record books, and he will be in the HOF at some point. Simply because there are those in the population that want to call him a cheater etc... in no way deminish what the man has done. Unless it is possable to re-write all the pitching stats for every pitcher that faced him as well.
posted by Folkways at 04:11 PM on March 26, 2006
The asterisk was next to Roger Maris for years. There is no asterisk. There never was an asterisk next to Maris' name. It was simply an idea a sports writer made, but it never happened. Grum if you don't mind (and I'm not picking a fight or anything, I just want to know), could you explain to me your stance on the Barry Bonds issue? I've gathered that you usually stick up for Bonds but I'm not sure whether you think he is innocent, or what he did, ect. If you could tell me I'd appreciate it. I've mentioned it a couple of times before, but here it goes: Before the recent revelations, I believed that Bonds used a P.E.D. in the 1999 or 2000 season to help recover from an injury. After discovering it's effectiveness, he then used it for another year or two in the off-season. Whether he knew it was a steroid or some other designer (and previously unbanned) drug is obviously unknown to me. My "sticking up" for Bonds is actually more of a "sticking up" for intelligent arguments and thoughtful analysis of the subject of steroids, baseball, statistics and history. I tend to play devil's advocate when I see comments about a player's physical size being an indicator of steroids, as weight training without steroids (plus age) can create a size difference between a rookie and a 35 year old player. I respond to comments about home runs and performance after a certain age, as previous posts (search through SpoFi to find them) have indicated many, many cases where HR totals have jumped (single season or after a certain age) and steroids was (probably) not a factor. Obviously, I've been too adamant and/or annoying on the subject of Bonds/steroids since I'm getting called out by people in almost every thread now. I'll just keep my opinion to myself in every Bonds thread from here on out. however, if someone calls me out directly or besmirches my name, I'm reserving the right to respond
posted by grum@work at 10:31 PM on March 26, 2006
grum, i'm not calling you out at all, and im certainly not attacking you...you have very valid points and bonds taking a previously unbanned substance is probably as good as a reason as any.... A lot of players do get bigger as they get older without the use of steroids and they deserve respect that they kept training hard as they got older... There are many players that i see that are much bigger as they get older that i don't think are using steroids.. And also it's not like any of us actually know whether bonds is a user or not, and i guess it doesn't really matter... A person's physical size doesn't really maintain if he is a user or not, i just have a gut feeling that in bonds case, it is relevant The fact that he suddenly had a serious injury while the accusations were flying at mcgwire and palmeiro after giambi's testimony strikes me as rather suspicious, and all im implying is that if bonds is guilty than it was a waste of talent, as he was certain to be a hall of famer without guilt if he hadn't used the drug... Sorry if my comments led you to believe there wasn't intelligence behind it...for me they were all pointing towards probable guilt.... So im also done on the subject and i wish to god that wingnut would put the dead horse summit sign underneath this
posted by FozzFest at 11:37 PM on March 26, 2006
Grum I wasn't calling you out either, some cases there i do agree with you, I was just clarifying what you think.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:14 AM on March 27, 2006
posted by wingnut4life at 10:04 AM on March 27, 2006
Obviously, I've been too adamant and/or annoying on the subject of Bonds/steroids since I'm getting called out by people in almost every thread now. I'll just keep my opinion to myself in every Bonds thread from here on out. I hope that you don't. I find your comments to be a much-needed reality check. These Bonds threads get so out of control and so exaggerated that you would think that steroids could tranform just about anyone into a player as successful as Bonds.
posted by bperk at 10:37 AM on March 27, 2006
Thank you wingnut!!!!
posted by FozzFest at 06:44 PM on March 27, 2006
grum, cut and paste. You make excellent points and they need to be repeated.
posted by fenriq at 01:08 AM on March 28, 2006
In fact, in this article, Bonds' lawyer Michael Rains makes a statement that has the potential to be the most devastating boomerang seen since the Feral Kid: "What we're saying is, who are the real cheaters? They are the ones who are using illegally obtained materials."