Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but I think many people who read this thread want to know.


[/ QUOTE ]

It may matter to those who disregard the rules of the sport as written and choose instead to impose their own made-up based on their own preferences.

But, I'm not one of those people, so I can't help you.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

This is not a complicated question. How likely is it that you think Bonds used PEDs or steroids?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
The argument should center around the unknown, the possibilities, our own opinions.


[/ QUOTE ]

The argument should center around what we don't know, and our own subjective opinions?

Sweet...

And here I am trying to use things like facts and details instead of speculation and conjecture.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that you have to constantly fall back on what is "known" is pretty damning in its own right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's pretty damning that I use facts to justify my position, as opposed to wild ass speculation.

Silly me.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that you shy away from drawing your own opinions from all the conjecture, all the rumors, is damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't shied away from drawing my own opinion, it's just that I've based it upon indisputable fact.

That you find it damning that I prefer to avoid rumor and conjecture is....well, I just don't know what to say.

I mean, seriously.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I didn't ask you for a percentage of cheating. Please answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I see....in previous threads, you asserted that PED use was synonymous with cheating.....and now you're saying that isn't the case.

Make up your mind already....sheesh.


From the other thread:
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Posted by manbearpig</font>
So if you admit that their is a possibility that Bonds used PED's then you are admitting their is a chance that Bonds cheated, which seems to go against your previous comments.

Because: possible PED use= possible cheating


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, you say you aren't asking about cheating....but then when someone assigns a percentage of PED use, you will say "HA! THEN HE WAS CHEATING! BECAUSE PED USE = CHEATING! HA HA!"

C'mon man, seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Just answer it. Obviously you think PED use in 1998 was not cheating, I think it was kinda cheating in a spirit of the rules way but not in a punishable way, and some people think that it should result in beheading. That is irrelevant. The cheating part is a judgment call. Even if we knew someone was 100% using we could still argue over whether that is cheating or not.

I just want your OPINION on the percentages.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]


The real difference of course, being that you worship at the altar of one, and you prejudge the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

And also, LOL.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a complicated question. How likely is it that you think Bonds used PEDs or steroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that he used steroids in violation of the rules of baseball, given that no credible evidence exists to prove it.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument should center around the unknown, the possibilities, our own opinions.


[/ QUOTE ]

The argument should center around what we don't know, and our own subjective opinions?

Sweet...

And here I am trying to use things like facts and details instead of speculation and conjecture.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that you have to constantly fall back on what is "known" is pretty damning in its own right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's pretty damning that I use facts to justify my position, as opposed to wild ass speculation.

Silly me.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that you shy away from drawing your own opinions from all the conjecture, all the rumors, is damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't shied away from drawing my own opinion, it's just that I've based it upon indisputable fact.

That you find it damning that I prefer to avoid rumor and conjecture is....well, I just don't know what to say.

I mean, seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK you cant really argue about facts. They are indisputable.

So yes, the argument should center around what we kinda sorta might maybe know.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a complicated question. How likely is it that you think Bonds used PEDs or steroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that he used steroids in violation of the rules of baseball, given that no credible evidence exists to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly amazing.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think one detail you are missing is that the RP case is a subjective opinion of an intangible quality. The BB case is a yes/no proposition.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, *you* are the one that brought up the RP situation as being similar....I'm the one who has been saying they are different.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

You fell right into that one....

[ QUOTE ]

&lt;snip Ron Paul diatribe&gt;


[/ QUOTE ]

Take it to politics, hoss. We can discuss your Grand Wizard there.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that he used steroids in violation of the rules of baseball, given that no credible evidence exists to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know....silly me using those facts and details again instead of engaging in your speculation and conjecture.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a complicated question. How likely is it that you think Bonds used PEDs or steroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that he used steroids in violation of the rules of baseball, given that no credible evidence exists to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do the rules of baseball and whether he violated them have to do with the probability that Bonds used PEDs?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK you cant really argue about facts. They are indisputable.


[/ QUOTE ]

You must not have read the other 1,307 thread about Bonds on 2+2 in the last two years.

Especially considering in the last week you asserted as "fact" that Bonds admitted use under oath, and that not all players were tested....both of which were false.

[ QUOTE ]

So yes, the argument should center around what we kinda sorta might maybe know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your desire to have an "argument" over differing opinions.

They're opinions, and they are neither right are wrong.

Several people have disputed facts, and have been wrong, but all we can sit here and do with our own opinions is run around in circles and disagree.

It's doesn't amount to a hill of beans, in the end, which is why I've been rather consistent in my desire to keep the discussion primarily centered around the facts, especially those that not everyone may be entirely aware of or agree with.

For example, up until a few days ago, you didn't even know that all players were tested, and you mistakenly assumed that only a few of them were.

Likewise, you asserted as fact that Bonds had admitted use in his testimony, when the fact is that he hadn't.

All in all, you can form your opinion however you want, but if your doing it on facts that aren't true, then your doing yourself a disservice, and if you want to get your facts straight, then maybe I can be of some service.

If you want to just go on with an deadset opinion, and make up the facts along the way to justify it, and ignore the facts...then I can't help you.

No more, no less.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

What do the rules of baseball and whether he violated them have to do with the probability that Bonds used PEDs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, what does the probability that Bonds used PEDs have to do with rules of baseball and whether or not he violated them?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

He is the greatest baseball player of all-time.

Barry Lamar Bonds - - - !&gt; GOAT

Re: Bonds Responds
 

OMG, WTF does it matter how RedBean would weight the percentage of Bonds having used steroids? Jesus Christ. Even if RB thinks he used PEDs a majority of the time, it doesn't matter because it wasn't a punishable offense by MLB. STFU about it already.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What do the rules of baseball and whether he violated them have to do with the probability that Bonds used PEDs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, what does the probability that Bonds used PEDs have to do with rules of baseball and whether or not he violated them?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are extremely determined not to answer the question that was asked. Do you think you have answered the question or made an honest attempt to?

The probability of Bonds using PEDs doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not he violated the rules of baseball. How does that make it not an important question? edit- Maybe some people think it is important and others think it is meaningless, there is no right answer to the question but that answer doesn't change what the probably of Bonds using PEDs was.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

owsley,

Why does RB have to answer it? Does it prove something?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
OMG, WTF does it matter how RedBean would weight the percentage of Bonds having used steroids? Jesus Christ. Even if RB thinks he used PEDs a majority of the time, it doesn't matter because it wasn't a punishable offense by MLB. STFU about it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

But much like the real issue for the media was never steroids, and instead was "getting Bonds"....I think in our limited group here, the issue isn't even with debating facts about Bonds anymore......but instead some folks are focusing it on *me*....because I've destroyed every attempt at factual argument regarding Bonds violating a baseball rule.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
owsley,

Why does RB have to answer it? Does it prove something?

[/ QUOTE ]

RB knows a lot more about Bonds than me, and I am just curious how likely those who are familiar with his career and life think it is that he used PEDs. I just want to find out more about him. RedBean has made hundreds of posts about Bonds on this forum so I thought he would be a good person to ask.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

The probability of Bonds using PEDs doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not he violated the rules of baseball. How does that make it not an important question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because my primary interest as it relates to Bonds is discussing whether or not he violated baseball rules.

Ultimately, I think that is everyone's underlying ultimate interest in him.

It's an obvious leading question that is being floated to project someone else's own personal beliefs on what consititutes cheating, in complete disregard for the rules as they were written.

Granted, if he had chosen the vocation of garbage collector, I doubt we'd have much interest in the probability that he took steroids.

We're here talking about it because some people think Bonds cheated at baseball, and some people think he didn't.

And likewise, as it doesn't necessarily relate to whether or not he violated baseball rules, I'm just as much concerned with whether or not he puts cream in his coffee, or if he puts butter on his grits.

I really don't care, in short...what baseball players do when they are on their own time, as long as they aren't breaking the rules of the game and they show up and perform on the field.

And that is exactly what Bonds has done....played by the rules, and performed on the field.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]


I don't understand your desire to have an "argument" over differing opinions.



[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? Seriously man? What is the point of ever having a conversation then?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

From the other thread:

[ QUOTE ]
"PED" means different things to different people...let's nail down what we mean here, and then I'm happy to answer....but not before that, as you're propensity to run amok with false assertions makes me cautious.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I nailed down what I meant, I told you I don't care if you think it is cheating or not, I reposted it multiple times for you to answer, and still no answer.

So are you a liar? You told me that you would be happy to answer. That is a fact. And we all know you only deal in facts. So what is it going to be?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
OMG, WTF does it matter how RedBean would weight the percentage of Bonds having used steroids? Jesus Christ. Even if RB thinks he used PEDs a majority of the time, it doesn't matter because it wasn't a punishable offense by MLB. STFU about it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB. And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction.

And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not. He is the holder of the most holy record in sports and is arguably the GOAT. His legacy will largely be determined by the resolution/non resolution of his alleged PED use.

Oh, and also, don't click on the thread? Would that help?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't understand your desire to have an "argument" over differing opinions.



[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? Seriously man? What is the point of ever having a conversation then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about you, but I have had millions of conversations that I wouldn't call "arguments".

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
From the other thread:

[ QUOTE ]
"PED" means different things to different people...let's nail down what we mean here, and then I'm happy to answer....but not before that, as you're propensity to run amok with false assertions makes me cautious.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I nailed down what I meant, I told you I don't care if you think it is cheating or not, I reposted it multiple times for you to answer, and still no answer.

So are you a liar? You told me that you would be happy to answer. That is a fact. And we all know you only deal in facts. So what is it going to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet, now I am a "liar" because I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Nevermind that I answered it, and you just weren't happy with the answer you got.

I mean, seriously.

First, my opinion was 'wrong'....now my opinion is a 'lie'.

Does it surprise you that I have preferred sticking to the facts, considering that when I do offer an opinion, this is how people react.

Sweet...

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but I think many people who read this thread want to know.


[/ QUOTE ]

It may matter to those who disregard the rules of the sport as written and choose instead to impose their own made-up based on their own preferences.

But, I'm not one of those people, so I can't help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think Bonds took steroids or not? Simple question. The answer is yes or no. It isn't a leading question. It's a simple question of opinion.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction.


[/ QUOTE ]

What direction would that be?

Lemme guess....that you think PED use is cheating?

We can go ahead and skip to that step if you prefer. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters if he violates the baseball policy, which he didn't.

It only matters to *you* whether he took PEDs, because you think any and all PED use is against the rules and cheating, when it clearly isn't.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think Bonds took steroids or not? Simple question. The answer is yes or no. It isn't a leading question. It's a simple question of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he took any illegal steroids in violation of baseball rules.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB

[/ QUOTE ]

he's not the only one, its just he's so good at it, the rest just let him take care of business

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]


Nevermind that I answered it, and you just weren't happy with the answer you got.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out where you answered this:



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RedBean,

What percentage chance do you assign to a random player from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using a PED?

What percentage chance do you assign Barry Bonds from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using a PED?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you referring to when you mean PED?

Are we talking illegal PED's? Non-prescription?

Are we talking over the counter ones?

Are we talking purely illegal steroids?

Or are we talking anything that can be classified as a PED?

Narrow it down here, as you've been known to shift the goalpoasts on the definition of what you originally ask once you get an answer, and then twist it into something that isn't applicable. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"PED" means different things to different people...let's nail down what we mean here, and then I'm happy to answer....but not before that, as you're propensity to run amok with false assertions makes me cautious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any substance that has been deemed illegal to buy/sell without the proper prescription, or a substance that is performance enhancing ands illegal in any sense, prescription or not.

That work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction.


[/ QUOTE ]

What direction would that be?

Lemme guess....that you think PED use is cheating?

We can go ahead and skip to that step if you prefer. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters if he violates the baseball policy, which he didn't.

It only matters to *you* whether he took PEDs, because you think any and all PED use is against the rules and cheating, when it clearly isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it would move the discussion to whether it is cheating or not. Which seems to be a matter that is debatable.

Anyway, I am headed out for the night. Look forward to your responses.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

Ok, now it is obvious that the discussion that people want to be having is: "Using steroids or PEDs was not a violation of baseball's rules from 1996-2002, but if a player did engage in those substances during that period of time, how would we judge them?"

Obviously different people answer that question in different ways, and that is ok. Some people think that because it wasn't against baseball's rules that makes it not cheating. I don't disagree with that, it is a logical argument. Other people think that using steroids is something that taints a player's career and accomplishments, and that is defensible too. There are other logical counterarguments to that, such as Aaron likely using amphetamines, etc, etc. but we have been through them 100 times so I won't bore people. The disucssion can go on and on and on. I don't think that any one of those answers is inherently wrong or immoral, it depends on how you view things. But Redbean's refusal to have that discussion and instead keep saying over and over again "There is a zero % chance he violated MLB's rules" is dishonest.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB. And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason for anyone else to post on the "pro-Bonds" side because RedBean handles it well himself.

[ QUOTE ]
And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not. He is the holder of the most holy record in sports and is arguably the GOAT. His legacy will largely be determined by the resolution/non resolution of his alleged PED use.

[/ QUOTE ]

His legacy shouldn't be tarnished if he hasn't violated any rules.

If creatine is banned by MLB this year, will that tarnish every player who has used creatine up until this year?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and also, don't click on the thread? Would that help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't ask the same retarded question over and over and over again that you know RB won't answer? Would that help?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG, WTF does it matter how RedBean would weight the percentage of Bonds having used steroids? Jesus Christ. Even if RB thinks he used PEDs a majority of the time, it doesn't matter because it wasn't a punishable offense by MLB. STFU about it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB. And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction.

And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not. He is the holder of the most holy record in sports and is arguably the GOAT. His legacy will largely be determined by the resolution/non resolution of his alleged PED use.

Oh, and also, don't click on the thread? Would that help?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you wanted to, you could assume that RedBean thinks it is 99% likely that Bonds used PEDs, or you could assume he thinks its .0001%, and it wouldnt make a shred of difference to anything he posts. Since I dont know RedBean or ever plan on meeting him, I dont really care what his personal opinion (read: guess) is about what Bonds took, ESPECIALLY since it doesnt impact his arguments or his position in any way.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think Bonds took steroids or not? Simple question. The answer is yes or no. It isn't a leading question. It's a simple question of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he took any illegal steroids in violation of baseball rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, to sum up your position, anyone can do whatever they want, whether legal or illegal, as long as there isn't anything on it in the rulebook?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB

[/ QUOTE ]

he's not the only one, its just he's so good at it, the rest just let him take care of business

[/ QUOTE ]

He is good...excellent skills of avoidance, misdirection, etc.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think Bonds took steroids or not? Simple question. The answer is yes or no. It isn't a leading question. It's a simple question of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he took any illegal steroids in violation of baseball rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, to sum up your position, anyone can do whatever they want, whether legal or illegal, as long as there isn't anything on it in the rulebook?

[/ QUOTE ]

They might have to deal with the cops or the FDA or something.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would move the discussion to whether it is cheating or not. Which seems to be a matter that is debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, let's discuss it then.

You think it is "cheating", not because it is in violation of the rules that govern the sport, but because "you just think it is."

I disagree, and think that because it is not in violation of the rules that govern the sport, it isn't cheating.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

How about all the pitchers BB faced that were using PEDs? He would have been at an unfair advantage if he wasnt using PEDs himself. Have you guys considered that?

Best player of all time imo.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people think that because it wasn't against baseball's rules that makes it not cheating. I don't disagree with that, it is a logical argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, it is a logical argument.

[ QUOTE ]

But Redbean's refusal to have that discussion and instead keep saying over and over again "There is a zero % chance he violated MLB's rules" is dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I have an opinion that disagrees with yours, it makes it "dishonest"?

Sweet...

And when have I refused to have the discussion of whether or not PED use was against the rules during that time period?

By all means, let's have that discussion.

Here, I'll start:

The use of steroids were not in violation of baseball rules prior to the implementation of the MLB Steroid Policy on September 30th, 2002, as part of the 2003-2006 MLB CBA.

It called for the 2003 season to be a survey year with no discipline, and if more than 5% of players tested positive for any of a list of banned substances, then starting in 2004, the testing program would shift into one with clear enforcement steps.

If you disagree, please to be letting me know why.