The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give a 100% chance that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the evidence is credible; Redbean thinks none of it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just me that thinks the evidence isn't credible.

Remember what the Pulitzer panel said of the GoS book when the authors submitted it for consideration?

As reported by Buster Olney of ESPN:

"...never made it beyond the initial jury stage to the Pulitzer committee. Their work was deemed by the jury too based upon unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence and was therefore not able to be viewed as factual."



[ QUOTE ]

But the fact that the evidence does not equal absolute proof (yet) does not mean that all the evidence must be dismissed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, when 'evidence' is largely seen as unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and not viewed as factual, it is dismissed by objective people.

It serves only as fuel for those who need a reason otherwise to support their preordained hate for Bonds.

[ QUOTE ]

And with regards to standards of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard that must be reached BEFORE SOMEONE IS SENT TO PRISON. A stiff penalty and therefore an onerous burden of proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

The standard of proof to be in violation of the MLB steroid policy is a failed steroid test.

Oops!

[ QUOTE ]

if there's significant evidence that a guy cheated, I don't think he gets in.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you define "significant" as a large amount of unsubstantiated evidence, and the abscence of credible evidence....then maybe so.

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, while there's not (yet) enough evidence/proof to send Bonds to jail, there's enough to keep him out of the Hall.


[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't even enough evidence in the book for it to be deemed "factual" by the people who oversee journalistic excellence.

[ QUOTE ]

Will any of the Bonds supporters at least acknowledge the point I'm making about different burdens of proof?


[/ QUOTE ]

Will you acknowledge that the standard of proof for "cheating in baseball", as defined by MLB itself, is actually much higher than that of a court of law, in that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not enough, and it requires a failed steroid test to be in violation of the MLB steroid policy?

Open and shut case here. Barry Bonds has not violated the MLB policy. The burden of proof that Bonds "cheated" has not been met, as written in black and white in the rules that govern MLB.

Everything else is speculation, conjecture, and the projection by the media and others of what they want the rules to be so they can say he broke them, when it just isn't a reality. He hasn't broken any rules, he hasn't cheated the game.

The HOF, on the other hand, doesn't have a burden of proof. It is a subjective popularity contest voted on by baseball writers. They can deny someone membership just because they don't like their eye color.

If they choose to deny Barry membership based on their belief he broke an unwritten rule that they made up, despite the fact that he never violated a MLB steroid rule, that is their right.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence that you think is so strong is really just the bare minimum needed to convict in the media. We know full well how little that actually is.


[/ QUOTE ]

As in the Duke Lacrosse case? Anybody?

Oops....

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give a 100% chance that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
What is likelihood (%) in your opinion that he knowingly took steroids during the 2001 year.

(Btw, i understand that he didnt break any MLB policies. I could careless about all of that. I am just curious, beyond the legal standpoint, how likely it is you guys think he did or didn't take steroids in 2001.)

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

What is likelihood (%) in your opinion that he knowingly took steroids during the 2001 year.


[/ QUOTE ]

What type of steroid are we talking about? Illegal ones? Banned ones? Or anything that can be classified as a steroid?

[ QUOTE ]
(Btw, i understand that he didnt break any MLB policies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're way ahead of most folks. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Gregatron]

Drew:

Barry Bonds might not be the greatest player ever, but he is close. If he doesn't get into the HOF, then the HOF becomes less legitimate.

He probably did do something shady. But he was FAR from the only one, and likely cheated a lot less than many others did.

And btw, this is coming from a Cardinal fan who things Mark McGwire does not belong.

[HajiShirazu]

Didn't Bonds flat out admit he took steroids? Oh wait, he thought it was flaxseed oil and arthritis balm. Sure.
If someone wants to make the argument that he should get in to the HOF anyway because everybody else was doing it and it wasn't even illegal, that's fine with me. If someone wants to say that steroids didn't really help him that much and he would have broke the record anyway, I would disagree but I think that at least a semi-reasonable argument can be made for that. But if you honestly believe that Bonds didn't take steroids, or for that matter that there's even a chance he didn't take steroids, there's no reason to even argue with you, because if you aren't convinced already, there's nothing that could convince you.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, while there's not (yet) enough evidence/proof to send Bonds to jail, there's enough to keep him out of the Hall.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't enough evidence to get an indictment! Which means there isn't any evidence.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, while there's not (yet) enough evidence/proof to send Bonds to jail, there's enough to keep him out of the Hall.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't enough evidence to get an indictment! Which means there isn't any evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't have evidence to meet a 98% standard? Must have 0% evidence then.

Please...try to be more illogical next time.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, while there's not (yet) enough evidence/proof to send Bonds to jail, there's enough to keep him out of the Hall.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't enough evidence to get an indictment! Which means there isn't any evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't have evidence to meet a 98% standard? Must have 0% evidence then.

Please...try to be more illogical next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please try to be a more obtuse douchebag next time.

DD presented the situation as an amount of evidence somewhere less than being able to secure a conviction, which is a high bar. I was just pointing out it was actually somewhere less than the level necessary for an indictment, which is very low bar.