The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Red Bean....do you have reading comprehension skills?

who said that OJ's killing equated to Bond's use of performance enhancing substances?


that's right...no one


what has been said is that the amount of evidence v Barry is similar to that v OJ

it's also been said that your 'defense' of Bonds is simlar to that of Cochran defending OJ


but, congrats in trying to discredit the other side by completely misportraying the other side yet again
you sure pwned that imaginary point

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious, the amount of evidence is about the same?

You understand OJ went to trial? Maybe you saw it on TV at some point? It was kind of big news.

You also understand that Bonds has never even been indicted, much less tried? But you think that they pretty much have the same amount of evidence, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]


hahahahhaahhahahahahah

yep...very similar in that it's blatantly obvious

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be a judge.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
ummmmmm

the bodies


[/ QUOTE ]
Being amazing = evidence he did steroids.
Edit: Didn't bother looking at the other two links first.
Link 2. Shaq must be on Roids as well look at how big he has gotten.

Link 3 it seems the fact they nailed that guy yet haven't indicted Bonds hurts your argument.


[ QUOTE ]
i thought i was bored of these threads - nope, they are still awesome. redbean ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
speaking of strawmen


evidence necessary to convict in a criminal trial is nowhere close to preponderance of evidence or ability to think logically



Look at what Bonds has said
add up all the little things
look at his numbers
look at his pictures

hmmmmmmmmmm... there are quite alot of things I don't have 100% proof for, but it would be insane for me not to believe them




keep going there Cochran

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, RedBean, how could you possibly have been so negligent as to forget about "the little things?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice, once again, someone glossing over stuff and trying to identify one point where they can try to twist a semantic argument to discredit the rest of what was said


congrats

[/ QUOTE ]

ALL of those things above are "little things." Basically, you are using the same argument that people use against sabermetrics or statistical analysis in sports. You are saying "Yeah but you gotta see the games." This is a fantastic argument in that it allows you to be right and there is no possible way anyone could ever contradict you.

I'm sure if I say that when I look at his pictures and when I look at all the other stuff, it doesn't seem to me that he must have done steroids, you will say something like "ZOMG YOU ARE SO BLIND AND STUPID ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU." Which is extremely constructive.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dude, RedBean, how could you possibly have been so negligent as to forget about "the little things?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice, once again, someone glossing over stuff and trying to identify one point where they can try to twist a semantic argument to discredit the rest of what was said


[/ QUOTE ]

What is he glossing over?

You assert the evidence against Bonds to be:

1. "what he said"
2. "his numbers"
3. "his pictures"
4. "the little things"

I'll engage in intelligent, rational debate about all 4 of these items until I'm blue in the face, if you'd like, but to be honest the sarcasm dripping from Vhawk's reply to you was due to the fact that such debate probably isn't possible by the mere fact that you are pointing to numbers and pictures as evidence of steroid use.

[/ QUOTE ]

what??????????????

you look at those numbers and those pictures combined with Barry's personal attitude and the close relationships he had with dopers, yet don't see that as very compelling evidence of performance enhancement product use above and beyond OTC use???????????

hahahahhahahahahha
hahahhahahahahhahah
rofl


hahahahahhahahah

EDIT: notice everyone how i've used the tactic largely adopted by some people in the long-going Barry saga of reducing the opposing view by laughing at it as it doesn't even merit consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, thats exactly what I thought you'd say and exactly why your position is useless. I could laugh at you, if I were as simple.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
So do I have this straight, Redbean?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't because everytime you attempt to clarify it, you rephrase and misattribute my position.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

It is your position that the 1991 memo, which on its face prohibited non-prescribed steroids, did not ban steroids? The prescription qualifier, in your mind, removes the prohibition?


[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that the 1991 memo did not unilaterally ban all steroids.

The language addresses illegal drugs, including prescription drugs for which the player does not have a prescription.

The memo, if anything, banned illegal steroids, and those prescription steroids for which a player did not have a prescription.

<u>Now, it's your turn.</u>

Is it your position that THG, aka "the clear", (that Bonds is alleged to have used), was an illegal or controlled substance tht required a prescription prior to 2003?

Because it wasn't....Oops!....

That's right, it was added to Schedule I in 2003.

Which brings me back to my original question.....which rule did he break from 1998-2002....even assuming your assertions of him taking THG are true?

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
plenty of non-shortstacks have tried to beat redbean. he's unassailable unless you actually come armed with facts. you are making yourself look worse and worse with these 'refutations' which are basically hand-waving, and then laughing. they're not arguments at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure I've won


not handwaving

strong knit of the most relevant items

Bonds tried to gain power and size--he did but plateaued
suddenly, it bursts to the next level at the same time his personal training squad is heavily involved with doping--part of that circle goes to prison
his numbers get a late career power surge that doesn't match the sabermetric expectations

I would value someone's reasoning skills and life abilities as lower if they did not think Bonds was doping



EDIT: I'll also state that nowhere did I allege any violation of MLB rules or whatever. Hell, the chemists are so far ahead of laws and testing that it's pretty laughable.

My case is that Bonds doped. He received some benefit from it. How much? who knows. He probably would've broke the record someday anyway. He is one of, if not the greatest hitter in baseball history. However, he still doped.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
plenty of non-shortstacks have tried to beat redbean. he's unassailable unless you actually come armed with facts. you are making yourself look worse and worse with these 'refutations' which are basically hand-waving, and then laughing. they're not arguments at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure I've won


not handwaving

strong knit of the most relevant items

Bonds tried to gain power and size--he did but plateaued
suddenly, it bursts to the next level at the same time his personal training squad is heavily involved with doping--part of that circle goes to prison
his numbers get a late career power surge that doesn't match the sabermetric expectations

I would value someone's reasoning skills and life abilities as lower if they did not think Bonds was doping

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to make a ridiculously obvious point:

Not everyone is going to match the sabermetric projections, and if I was going to go looking for people to be my outliers, the greatest hitter ever to live would be high on my list.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
It is your position (DrewDevil's) that a 10 year old memo has any authority whatsoever in comparison to the CBA?

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW...regarding the memo and whether or not it actually established a "rule"......the MLB Drug Prevention Program that was established as a result of the memo did not ban any steroids, nor were any steroids on the banned substance list until 2003.

You'd think that if the memo's intent were to ban steroids, they'd have remembered to include them in the official Drug Preventation program, put them on the banned substance list, and probably would have informed players breaking in after 1991 that didn't know about the memo that they were banned.

Put simply, the union didn't agree to it, and the commish is MLB management, and he doesn't make rules that govern labor relations unless they are agreed to in the CBA.

For example, as I said earlier, if I were called up to the bigs in 1995, and I have in front of me my player contract,
the CBA, and the MLB rulebook.....how would I know steroids are banned?

I wouldn't, because they weren't

Or do I find out 8 years later when ESPN reports on an old memo that I never saw? Amazingly, 4 years after I left the game.

So I could have spent 4 years in MLB from '95 to '99, not realizing until 2003 that steroids were banned in 1991?

Huh?

[Triumph36]

m2tr:

you sure seem to have a lot of support in this thread - usually a good sign.

you also missed the extensive thread where redbean is able to convincingly prove that hank aaron beat projections in a similar fashion to bonds

[Edge34]

I have an honest question, and I'm going to put my personal distaste for Barry aside here for a minute...

A lot of the argument for Bonds is that "everybody's doing it". People talk about the fact that its the "steroid era" and claim that basically most, if not all, big-time players are using some kind of steroids. My question - how is that a legitimate argument? Does that make it any less wrong or taint a record any less? Because lots of other people are breaking the rules and either get caught, does that somehow make it "less bad" that Bonds is doing it?

I'm just saying, I've seen that a lot in this thread, and I have to say, people talk about Aaron's amphetamines, and the fact that Babe never had to play black players, but it seems to me that steroids would have a much larger effect than any of the other misdeeds or simple circumstances in baseball's past. The ability to grow more muscle faster (coupled with an already great eye for the ball) and recuperate faster would do more than any upper or hot dog ever would, I think.

Like I said, I'm just saying, people shouldn't excuse Bonds as "just another player in the steroid era". Cheating is cheating no matter how many players are doing it. Now, whether he did or not is up for debate, but that's why we're here, isn't it?