|
|
#151
08-30-2007, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] they came nowhere close to Bonds' 'old' years in terms of overall effectiveness (as compared to their younger years). [/ QUOTE ] Oddly enough, Bonds most effective seasons came after steroid testing. I remember SI publishing that offseason (Verducci to be exact) that "now it will be a level playing field and we'll see the true players emerge, and some conspicuously disappear". Oops. Not exactly what they expected. [/ QUOTE ] Not saying that Bonds did or didn't take steroids(or other performance enhancers), BUT the big issue with the CLEAR was that it was undetectable. This issue is/was huge with several rival track coaches(Trevor Graham namely) and is the entire reason any of it saw the headlines. Also tests for HGH are still unreliable(NFL doesn't test for it). Never testing positive does not mean a guy can't be guilty. Look at the other major sports where doping is huge and how long it takes for a guy to slip up and test positive(and these are sports where testing is much more rigorous and occurs much more often). I think our eyes would truly be opened if the MLB adopted a real testing procedure like track and field or cycling. 
|
|
#153
08-30-2007, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] adopted a real testing procedure like track and field or cycling. [/ QUOTE ] Affirmation you're a tard. Aside from the idiotic HGH comment. [/ QUOTE ] Ummmm... do you follow any of those sports? And there is no reliable test for HGH, please please prove me wrong.
|
|
#155
08-30-2007, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
Cycling is notorious for all the doping that goes on. If you're looking to eliminate PEDs, it's not really the sport you want to model your testing program after. [/ QUOTE ] Ahhh but its also notorious for catching(then banning). Cycling tests for so much its insane. To catch a blood doper or user of EPO is extremely difficult, and yet they still catch some. No testing system is perfect, but the limits that MLB(or rather players union) puts of the system make it essentially useless.
|
|
#156
08-30-2007, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] adopted a real testing procedure like track and field or cycling. [/ QUOTE ] Affirmation you're a tard. Aside from the idiotic HGH comment. [/ QUOTE ] Ummmm... do you follow any of those sports? And there is no reliable test for HGH, please please prove me wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Do you know what HGH does? Thank you. Next question.
|
|
#157
08-30-2007, 11:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
I didn't arbitrarily choose the years. That is where there is a break in data points. If you are going to do this exercise then it seems obvious to break out the 1st 4 years of Bonds career. In '90 he became a different type of player. To group '90-'92 with '86-'89 is ridiculous. Whether this was due to physical maturity or a change in his approach at the plate it there for all to see. The next 10 years are very similar. You could even make the case that '99 and '00 should be included in this set. He may have started a new vitamin program after the '98 season but the injury and surgery in '99 could have offset any gains from the new program. Bonds' involvement with Greg Anderson and Balco supposedly began in 2000. You could argue that any program Bonds' undertook at that time took at least a year to take full effect. But really it is irrelevant. I was taking issue with the link provided in the OP which attempts to explain away Bonds' late career explosion by grouping his career into 3 periods (the periods end with the 2004 season which is why I didn't look at the years after that). I really don't care how you group them or whether you group them the fact remains his stats went through the roof AFTER he played 14 seasons. Whether this was due to selling his soul to the devil or an amazing new workout regimen or maple bats or 'juiced' balls or smaller ballparks is moot. The point is that some people are trying to sell the idea that this late career surge is 'normal' when it most definitely is NOT.
|
|
#158
08-30-2007, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] adopted a real testing procedure like track and field or cycling. [/ QUOTE ] Affirmation you're a tard. Aside from the idiotic HGH comment. [/ QUOTE ] Ummmm... do you follow any of those sports? And there is no reliable test for HGH, please please prove me wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Do you know what HGH does? Thank you. Next question. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, aids in healing and can lead to potential gains in eyesight among other things. Most athletes take it in conjunction with steroids, so I hope you see why a test for HGH would be beneficial. Do you believe it should be legal?
|
|
#159
08-30-2007, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] adopted a real testing procedure like track and field or cycling. [/ QUOTE ] Affirmation you're a tard. Aside from the idiotic HGH comment. [/ QUOTE ] Ummmm... do you follow any of those sports? And there is no reliable test for HGH, please please prove me wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Do you know what HGH does? Thank you. Next question. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, aids in healing and can lead to potential gains in eyesight among other things. Most athletes take it in conjunction with steroids, so I hope you see why a test for HGH would be beneficial. Do you believe it should be legal? [/ QUOTE ] I think I live in lala land. Taking HGH solely by itself will do almost nothing for your game unless you're Puckett.
|
|
#160
08-30-2007, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] adopted a real testing procedure like track and field or cycling. [/ QUOTE ] Affirmation you're a tard. Aside from the idiotic HGH comment. [/ QUOTE ] Ummmm... do you follow any of those sports? And there is no reliable test for HGH, please please prove me wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Do you know what HGH does? Thank you. Next question. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, aids in healing and can lead to potential gains in eyesight among other things. Most athletes take it in conjunction with steroids, so I hope you see why a test for HGH would be beneficial. Do you believe it should be legal? [/ QUOTE ] I think I live in lala land. Taking HGH solely by itself will do almost nothing for your game unless you're Puckett. [/ QUOTE ] We agree then. The main reason I would say test for it is because the only reason people are taking it is because they are on steroids. Cheers.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
