****OFFICIAL BONDS USED STEROIDS THREAD*********

[Vincent]

I read the SI excerpts, and it's pretty damning circumstantial evidence. It seems pretty detailed from the excerpts with multiple sources filling in details who were around the situation. It's not like the authors asked the batboy, "Whadya think son?" Batboy replies, "Barry likes juice." Authors rejoice, "We got him!"

Also, if Shaq started getting 40ppg/20rpg in only 25mpg, that would be a more fitting comparison.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
My only point was I am amazed at how much credibility everyone is giving to something they have not even read, and it smacks of their preconcieved notions, not of factual evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Chronicle reporters, who based the book on a two-year investigation, included an extensive summary on their sources, including court documents, affidavits filed by BALCO investigators, documents written by federal agents, grand jury testimony, audio recordings and interviews with more than 200 people. They may have some credibility.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Easier answer for Bonds. If it's false, he should sue them for libel. He's got the money to bankroll a litigation, and it should be pretty easy to prove that what's written in the book is false -- for example, that the records they say exist do not exist in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. In order to win the case for label, not only does he has to prove it false, he has to prove that these guys actually knew it was false when they wrote it, and wrote it maliciously. That is very, very hard to prove.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I read the SI excerpts, and it's pretty damning circumstantial evidence. It seems pretty detailed from the excerpts with multiple sources filling in details who were around the situation. It's not like the authors asked the batboy, "Whadya think son?" Batboy replies, "Barry likes juice." Authors rejoice, "We got him!"


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it is damning circumstantial evidence, but it is circumstantial nonetheless. And of course it reads as very detailed and convincing....if you were writing a book and hoping to make millions, you would make it as convincing as possible.

This isn't the smoking gun that everyone was hopping it to be. It doesn't make it fact. Agreed, it could be 99.9% likely, but it just isn't a confirmed fact.

They are capitalizing on public sentiment to make millions, at the expense of one man's reputation.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, if Shaq started getting 40ppg/20rpg in only 25mpg, that would be a more fitting comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no correlation to juicing and huge performance increases in baseball, other than anecdotal. It does nothing to improve hand-eye coordination, and while additional upper body mass improves bat force, it actually reduces bat speed. Not that it proves or disproves anything, but I most can probably agree that no amount of steriods is going to make someone more selective at the plate or improve their ability to properly time their swings on the variety of junk the pitcher is throwing.

For reference, see Alex Sanchez's stats.

The thing that distinguishes Bonds from his peers in terms of performance over the years, at least to ME, was his innate ability to be selective at the plate, rarely swing at bad pitches, patience to wait on his pitch.... hence the high number of walks and extremely low strikeout totals for a hitter with pop.

I don't have an opinion either way on what he did or didn't put in his body, I just enjoy the game of baseball and it is always a pleasure to see him practice his craft, because all prejuidices aside, the man is an artisan in the batter's box.

It's no different to me than Maddux getting Lasik to improve his vision, or the long list of pitchers who were able to prolong their careers through Tommy John surgery, or the assertions that Hank, Mick, Duke, Willie, and about 97% of MLBers since the 50's popped greenies to keep them going.

I'm old enough to remember when baseball purists thought it was "unnatural" and "borderline shady" for power hitters to lift weights and workout year round. Other players didn't like it at first because it then forced them to do the same conditioning to keep up and stay competitive.

Granted, juicers are not just getting a free ride to fame and fortune, they are going to pay for their choices with a shortened life span (Alzado, Caminiti, etc). It's their life, it's their choice. I only watch baseball for entertainment purposes, and if a guy is willing to risk death to entertain me, that shows dedication.

[junglewarfare]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easier answer for Bonds. If it's false, he should sue them for libel. He's got the money to bankroll a litigation, and it should be pretty easy to prove that what's written in the book is false -- for example, that the records they say exist do not exist in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. In order to win the case for label, not only does he has to prove it false, he has to prove that these guys actually knew it was false when they wrote it, and wrote it maliciously. That is very, very hard to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. Also, I am sure that the writers (from the SF Chronicle, right?) have good lawyers and have looked into this. They would have to be very stupid to expose themselves to this threat.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Rookie Season, 1986:



[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez Joe, thanks for the reminder that Bonds and McGwire are really going to screw up the value of my unopened 80s baseball card packs. At least Boggs, Gwynn and Ripken are safe.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

I can't even believe I need to argue about this. but...

[ QUOTE ]
It's quite obvious by the outrage and villification in this thread alone and the media in general since the announcement yesterday that preconcieved notions exist no matter what the actual truth is.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you think these "preconcieved notions" exist? people out of the blue just started to think that Bonds juiced?

Didn't Bonds ADMIT to using "the cream" and "the clear"?

Do you not remember this?

[ QUOTE ]

Consider this, for everyone in this thread pointing to this book as absolute proof of Bonds misdeeds, not a single one of them has actually read the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but people have read the excerpts

[ QUOTE ]

Would you not feel sheepish if the book came out and also detailed how Bonds sold his soul to the devil, or actually arrived via UFO in the mid-60's and his super alien strength is the source of his power?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES!!! I WOULD!!! but since the book will not say such ridiculous things w/o hard evidence, I'm confident this won't be a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
My only point was I am amazed at how much credibility everyone is giving to something they have not even read, and it smacks of their preconcieved notions, not of factual evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think OJ is innocent too?

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easier answer for Bonds. If it's false, he should sue them for libel. He's got the money to bankroll a litigation, and it should be pretty easy to prove that what's written in the book is false -- for example, that the records they say exist do not exist in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. In order to win the case for label, not only does he has to prove it false, he has to prove that these guys actually knew it was false when they wrote it, and wrote it maliciously. That is very, very hard to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares if he recovers from the authors? Bonds' motivation would not be to recover from them, it would be to prove that the book's steroid allegations are false and try to save his reputation. He does his discovery, makes a nice record showing that the allegations are false, and gets a decision or verdict that says that, while the allegations are untrue, unfortunately he can't recover because he hasn't proven malice. That's a "win" for Bonds.

Hell, he doesn't even need to take a suit through to the end. He could file a case, make a big public stink about how he's suing them, and then let the thing die a quiet death. He could even use the inability to prove malice as a crutch for his decision not to go through with it.

The point is that there are things the guy could do if the allegations were really false, to try to rebut the public's general belief in the allegations.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't the smoking gun that everyone was hopping it to be. It doesn't make it fact. Agreed, it could be 99.9% likely, but it just isn't a confirmed fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have an opinion either way on what he did or didn't put in his body

[/ QUOTE ]

so, you think it's 99.9% likely, but you're reserving all possible judgements until that .1% comes in. ok.

[tdarko]

parappa,

greenies or "beans," do not work like steroids in that they do something to your muscle growth to increase your ability. the toughest part of a baseball season is the grind, its different than any other sport in that mentally it will drain you and usually the best players are the ones that can overcome the difficulty of a season.

think of drinking a red bull, now multiply it by a number...maybe 25?? thats what greenies do to you. so when you are in the bullpen and at the tail end of a 14 game road trip and its the 7th inning and you have been baking in the 102 degree weather and 95% humidity all day and feel completely zapped, "beans" do the trick. just twist the cap, sprinkle the bitter powder on your toungue and chug a red bull or spark or whatever energy drink it is you prefer with it and you are an entirely different person in about 2 minutes.

its not really cheating anymore since if you DON'T do it you are the minority. this is a fact.

greenies are really powerful and not only for what they do to you while you are on them but what they can do to people when they do not take them. many players simply can't perform without them. i know players that freak out and play shi*ty w/o them, as if the only thing that has got them to the where they are is greenies and nothing else, so strange.

back in the 50's and 60's not as many players used amphetamines and it was looked down upon. these players kept it hidden as best as they could, this is why they have the cute nicknames such as "beans." today, they are accepted and passed around in the lockerroom, if you run out, give a teammate $2 and he will give you one of his. but 4 decades ago amphetamines were used to gain an edge just as steroids are today, but once everyone is doing it the edge is then erased. imagine if everyone did steroids, would there then be an edge?