|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] I'm avoiding speculation, conjecture, and baseless rumor.....and focusing on facts, details, and logical arguments. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
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? [/ QUOTE ] Great point. Oddly enough, Bonds put up what many consider the best single season in the history of baseball in 2004, the same year the MLB Steroid Policy took full effect. Positive test results had dropped from 6.7% in the survey testing of 2003 to 1% in 2004. In short, a lot of folks stopped using steroids, and Barry Bonds goes out and puts up arguably the best season in baseball history. Not to mention, the overall amount of Homeruns and HR rate was up in 2004 over 2003, which was up from 2002, when there was no testing or policy. Homeruns went up, and overall pitching stats went down. Not exactly what everyone expected when they ushered in testing and the media was expecting HR's to drop off. Anyone else remember that counter ESPN had early on in the season to track the drop in power surge? Oops... They took it down about midway through the season when it become obvious that the HR rate was going up. |
Re: Bonds Responds
Still waiting.....if you are not going to answer just say you aren't. That would be fine. But I think it would add to the discussion. Personal opinions shape arguments.
[ QUOTE ] [ 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 and is illegal in any sense, prescription or not. That work? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] While I completely agree that it would not change his argument one bit I am interested in hearing what he thinks. I have just never seen someone so heavily invested in defending someone he presumably does not know. I think his answer could potentially be very telling... |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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". [/ QUOTE ] Semantics you [censored] nit. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Jesus H Christ, how many times do I have to answer this? Yes, I think someone who used certain substances in a certain time period were certainly cheating in a spirit of the rules sense but not in a punishable sense. Retroactive punishment is a dumb ass idea. BB could come out tomorrow and say I shot steroids into my ass every single day and I don't think the league should do a damn thing about it. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] While I completely agree that it would not change his argument one bit I am interested in hearing what he thinks. I have just never seen someone so heavily invested in defending someone he presumably does not know. I think his answer could potentially be very telling... [/ QUOTE ] I'm like 80% sure RedBean and Bonds are cousins or college roomates. Definitely not 100% sure, but enough that I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say I believe it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Bonds Responds
One more time....in case you missed it again.
[ QUOTE ] Still waiting.....if you are not going to answer just say you aren't. That would be fine. But I think it would add to the discussion. Personal opinions shape arguments. [ QUOTE ] [ 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 and is illegal in any sense, prescription or not. That work? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Bonds Responds
Also, in case people missed it in the other thread, this is the biggest piece of lol irony I have ever seen, since RB himself answered that his name was inspired by his love of red beans and rice, I believe:
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, please tell me your name is based on the Mexican steroid. I dont know why I didnt catch it before a couple days ago but that is awesome. [/ QUOTE ] Not even close. [/ QUOTE ] http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594 From the article: [ QUOTE ] ...I know I've seen Greg give Barry the same thing I was taking," Sheffield said. "I didn't see him taking those red beans , but I seen him taking this (clear) and this cream here." [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Bonds Responds
And also, just for kicks, that Sheffield quotes seems pretty damning. If you know, you believe that he really said that and meant it.
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think someone who used certain substances in a certain time period were certainly cheating in a spirit of the rules sense but not in a punishable sense. [/ QUOTE ] You mean the "spirit of the rules" as you wish they had been? This isn't an issue of the spirit/letter of the law, considering that a policy against steroids didn't even exist, so it's hard to go against the spirit of something that didn't exist. It's not as if I am interpreting the policy differently than you, and we arguing the semantics of spirit versus letter.....the policy was non-existent until the 2003 season. That said, what "rule" do you think pre-2003 steroid use "against the spirit" of? [ QUOTE ] Retroactive punishment is a dumb ass idea. [/ QUOTE ] Says the guy who thinks Bonds cheated a rule from 1996-2002 that wasn't in effect until 2003. Sweet... |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
One more time....in case you missed it again. [ QUOTE ] Still waiting.....if you are not going to answer just say you aren't. That would be fine. But I think it would add to the discussion. Personal opinions shape arguments. [ QUOTE ] [ 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 and is illegal in any sense, prescription or not. That work? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I have to admit, I am getting a kick out of you growing angry and reposting the same question every third post, insisting that I answer it, despite me already answering it and you not being satisfied with it. Like MikeyPatriot already posted, I don't quite understand your obsession with getting me to answer it to your satisfaction...lol...other than you think it may be "telling". But just to be clear, is this what you want answered: (consolidated to include the definition of PED) What percentage chance do you assign to a random player from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using any substance that has been deemed illegal to buy/sell without the proper prescription, or a substance that is performance enhancing and is illegal in any sense, prescription or not? and What percentage chance do you assign to a Barry Bonds from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using any substance that has been deemed illegal to buy/sell without the proper prescription, or a substance that is performance enhancing and is illegal in any sense, prescription or not? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
And also, just for kicks, that Sheffield quotes seems pretty damning. If you know, you believe that he really said that and meant it. [/ QUOTE ] I find it odd that you assign instant credibility to Sheff's comments because you think they support your assertions.... Yet, you deny credibility to Victor Conte and Greg Anderson, who both testified that while they gave steroids to many athletes, they did not provide them to Bonds. Not to mention that despite an offer of immunity and secrecy, Bonds denied recieving steroids from Greg. But....all that aside....and even assuming Sheff's credibility....what does it really tell us that is damning? Let's examine it: [ QUOTE ] ...I know I've seen Greg give Barry the same thing I was taking," Sheffield said. "I didn't see him taking those red beans , but I seen him taking this (clear) and this cream here." [/ QUOTE ] 1. Sheff says he recieved the same thing Barry did, a clear and cream substance. Greg testified on Sept 3, 2003, that he gave steroids to his "little guys", Benito Santiago, Armando Rios, Marvin Benard, and Bobby Estella. He never mentioned giving steroids to Barry Bonds or Gary Sheffield. Greg, in fact, testified that Barry Bonds had never taken "the clear" or "the cream". The only thing "damning" with this statement is that, for all we know, Sheff and Bonds both recieved flaxseed oil and arthritic balm from Greg. 2. Sheff says he never saw Barry taking "red beans". Not very damning, considering this would be exculpatory. 3. Sheff says he saw Bonds taking a clear substance, and a cream substance. Did Sheff see Bonds taking flaxseed oil and arthritic balm? Even Sheff says he doesn't know, and he isn't sure. Yet, you think it is "damning" because you project your opinion that you WANT it to be steroids, rather than looking at it objectively. Funny how that works...huh? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, please tell me your name is based on the Mexican steroid. I dont know why I didnt catch it before a couple days ago but that is awesome. [/ QUOTE ] Not even close. [/ QUOTE ] http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594 From the article: [ QUOTE ] ...I know I've seen Greg give Barry the same thing I was taking," Sheffield said. "I didn't see him taking those red beans , but I seen him taking this (clear) and this cream here." [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I still don't quite get this one....are you saying that my name really is based on the mexican steroid, and that I'm lying when I tell you it isn't? Or do you really think you're the first person in the last 4 years to notice that my name is also used as a slang term for an illicit substance and find it ironic when we're discussing Bonds? Usually the others pointed it out in passing, and didn't make it a central point of their argument...quoting it several times in knee-slapping glee. I mean, seriously. |
Re: Bonds Responds
People who use italics as much as you do put me on tilt.
Ballplayers dont usually just go from base knocking smallish guys to giant huge-head home run hitters well past the time their body should have started slowing down. If defenders of Barry Bonds want to say "u cant prove he used" then fine. Youre right, we dont have a urine sample thats hot with steroids. Regardless, everyone whos not a blind Barry Bonds fan can see that hes been on steroids the same way a mother can tell their kid is on drugs. They dont need a piss test, the proofs is the pudding. Big head, oversized unnatural muscles, increased longevity, players/teammates calling him out, hanging out with trainers who provide steroids...ugh the list goes on and on ad nauseum. Give it up, the guy used steroids. Anyways let the man have his home run record since it wasnt "against the rules" to use them back then. Nice work finding a hole in the rulebook Barry. I like how he says he "wont go in the HOF" if that ball with the asterisk on it is in there. He apparently assumes that he would be elected in the first place. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Ballplayers dont usually just go from base knocking smallish guys to giant huge-head home run hitters well past the time their body should have started slowing down. [/ QUOTE ] Home Runs 1988 NL-24-9 1990 NL-33-4 1992 NL-34-2 1993 NL-46-1 1994 NL-37-3 1995 NL-33-4 1996 NL-42-2 1997 NL-40-4 1998 NL-37-9 2000 NL-49-2 2001 NL-73-1 2002 NL-46-2 2003 NL-45-2 2004 NL-45-4 Oops, Barry's been a consistent HR hitter for his entire career. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Ballplayers dont usually just go from base knocking smallish guys [/ QUOTE ] wait you are talking about Barry Bonds? the guy had a .677slg in 93, .647 in 94 after 1990 never below .514, and only twice below .575(90,91) I think you are thinking of someone else, redbean has destroyed the rest of your [censored] post many times [ QUOTE ] He apparently assumes that he would be elected in the first place [/ QUOTE ] lol |
Re: Bonds Responds
i never said he didnt hit HRs. i mean obv he did, or whats the point of using all those steroids? the point is, it made him grow in FREAKISHLY UNCOMMON WAYS. Since he hasnt claimed to have elephantitis of the head, its pretty clear to the non-san francisco crowd whats happening.
[ QUOTE ] redbean has destroyed the rest of your [censored] post many times [/ QUOTE ] in your eyes maybe. however i suspect you didnt require much convincing. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He apparently assumes that he would be elected in the first place [/ QUOTE ] lol [/ QUOTE ] if u think its a given thats fine. its pretty obvious from every roadtrip that the average baseball fan / media does not agree with you. Thats fairly important in making the HOF. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
People who use italics as much as you do put me on tilt. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry. [ QUOTE ] Ballplayers dont usually just go from base knocking smallish guys to giant huge-head home run hitters well past the time their body should have started slowing down. [/ QUOTE ] What age do you think elite ballplayers should start slowing down? Fun Fact: The last 5 position players inducted into the Hall of Fame, and 7 of the last 10, have seen an INCREASE in their HR rate after age 35, when comparing the 5 season from ages 30-34 to 35-39. Oops... [ QUOTE ] Regardless, everyone whos not a blind Barry Bonds fan can see that hes been on steroids the same way a mother can tell their kid is on drugs. [/ QUOTE ] Speaking of mother's intuition....I had a chance to sit with Bond's mom, Patricia, at a Giants game in Atlanta in 2006, the one where he hit #726 & #727 off Hudson. She was there with her granddaughter, Bond's daughter. She was an unassuming, normal lady, and unless you already knew, you'd never guess she was Bond's mom. You'd think she was at a little league game to cheer along her 11-year old son, with her cheap camera snapping candid photos, etc. Before his first at-bat, while in the on-deck circle, a group of drunks about 15 rows back were shouting all manner of nasty stuff, and you could see the pain in her face as she muttered "it's not right."....and then he he came to the plate, he drove one over the center field fence....she cheered, and turned to me and said "THAT is why they don't like him....because of that right there." And you know what? She was right. Good call on the mother's intuition. BTW...the year previous, I got to sit with the Niekro brothers....and Phil Niekro is an absolute pimp. ABSOLUTE P-I-M-P. [ QUOTE ] Big head, oversized unnatural muscles, increased longevity, [/ QUOTE ] Big head? Hmmm... Next time you're in Cooperstown, check out their display on the helmets Bonds wore when he hit 755 & 756. They are size 7 3/8. Oops... |
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 ] It's pretty sad that you can't answer a simple question. I can only assume that you think Bonds took steroids, but that you don't think it matters. Obviously your position is that anything outside of the rulebook is acceptable. It's pretty sad when the leagues have to start putting everything in the rulebooks, including crimes, to stop cheating. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
I'm like 80% sure RedBean and Bonds are cousins or college roomates. Definitely not 100% sure, but enough that I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say I believe it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Yes, amazing coincidence with his name as well. I can't believe someone is spending 2173 posts defending Bonds.... Could it be Barry himself? Hmmm, I need to compare the timestamps on his posts with the games..... |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And also, just for kicks, that Sheffield quotes seems pretty damning. If you know, you believe that he really said that and meant it. [/ QUOTE ] I find it odd that you assign instant credibility to Sheff's comments because you think they support your assertions.... Yet, you deny credibility to Victor Conte and Greg Anderson, who both testified that while they gave steroids to many athletes, they did not provide them to Bonds. Not to mention that despite an offer of immunity and secrecy, Bonds denied recieving steroids from Greg. But....all that aside....and even assuming Sheff's credibility....what does it really tell us that is damning? Let's examine it: [ QUOTE ] ...I know I've seen Greg give Barry the same thing I was taking," Sheffield said. "I didn't see him taking those red beans , but I seen him taking this (clear) and this cream here." [/ QUOTE ] 1. Sheff says he recieved the same thing Barry did, a clear and cream substance. Greg testified on Sept 3, 2003, that he gave steroids to his "little guys", Benito Santiago, Armando Rios, Marvin Benard, and Bobby Estella. He never mentioned giving steroids to Barry Bonds or Gary Sheffield. Greg, in fact, testified that Barry Bonds had never taken "the clear" or "the cream". The only thing "damning" with this statement is that, for all we know, Sheff and Bonds both recieved flaxseed oil and arthritic balm from Greg. 2. Sheff says he never saw Barry taking "red beans". Not very damning, considering this would be exculpatory. 3. Sheff says he saw Bonds taking a clear substance, and a cream substance. Did Sheff see Bonds taking flaxseed oil and arthritic balm? Even Sheff says he doesn't know, and he isn't sure. Yet, you think it is "damning" because you project your opinion that you WANT it to be steroids, rather than looking at it objectively. Funny how that works...huh? [/ QUOTE ] Cuo bono? |
Re: Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread
why don't interviewers ever ask "why the hell do you have a giant head?"
does anyone think bonds will end up with more HR than a-rod? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty sad that you can't answer a simple question. [/ QUOTE ] What's sad is that I've answered it, but you just don't like the answer. |
Re: Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread
[ QUOTE ]
why don't interviewers ever ask "why the hell do you have a giant head?" does anyone think bonds will end up with more HR than a-rod? [/ QUOTE ] Because he doesnt. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yes, I think someone who used certain substances in a certain time period were certainly cheating in a spirit of the rules sense but not in a punishable sense. [/ QUOTE ] You mean the "spirit of the rules" as you wish they had been? This isn't an issue of the spirit/letter of the law, considering that a policy against steroids didn't even exist, so it's hard to go against the spirit of something that didn't exist. It's not as if I am interpreting the policy differently than you, and we arguing the semantics of spirit versus letter.....the policy was non-existent until the 2003 season. That said, what "rule" do you think pre-2003 steroid use "against the spirit" of? [ QUOTE ] Retroactive punishment is a dumb ass idea. [/ QUOTE ] Says the guy who thinks Bonds cheated a rule from 1996-2002 that wasn't in effect until 2003. Sweet... [/ QUOTE ] Ahh....you see, there is a difference between cheating a "rule" and cheating in the "spirit of the rules" sense. See, if I thought he was cheating a rule I would say he should get punished. But since I dont think that, I dont think he should be punished. See how that works? As for the spirit of the rules that I keep bringing up, do you disagree that there are some unwritten rules/codes that ballplayers generally adhere to, and that it is possible that PED's could to some degree be in violation of one of those unwritten rules? And just to head this off, this is my opinion. An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. My ideas and thoughts can be changed by discussion. Facts, something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation, cannot be changed by discussing opinions. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit, I am getting a kick out of you growing angry and reposting the same question every third post, insisting that I answer it, despite me already answering it and you not being satisfied with it. Like MikeyPatriot already posted, I don't quite understand your obsession with getting me to answer it to your satisfaction...lol...other than you think it may be "telling". But just to be clear, is this what you want answered: (consolidated to include the definition of PED) What percentage chance do you assign to a random player from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using any substance that has been deemed illegal to buy/sell without the proper prescription, or a substance that is performance enhancing and is illegal in any sense, prescription or not? and What percentage chance do you assign to a Barry Bonds from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using any substance that has been deemed illegal to buy/sell without the proper prescription, or a substance that is performance enhancing and is illegal in any sense, prescription or not? [/ QUOTE ] The thing is you have not answered it. A correct answer to this question would be in the form of a number. Maybe like this: 12%, 78%, 0.4323432%, 99.23432897%. Or something similar. I dont know how to make it any simpler. What percentage chances do you assign to both a random player and Barry Bonds of ever having used a PED that as of today would be considered a banned substance? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
As for the spirit of the rules that I keep bringing up, do you disagree that there are some unwritten rules/codes that ballplayers generally adhere to, and that it is possible that PED's could to some degree be in violation of one of those unwritten rules? [/ QUOTE ] No. Baseball has historically been a game where guys will do whatever possible to gain an edge. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, please tell me your name is based on the Mexican steroid. I dont know why I didnt catch it before a couple days ago but that is awesome. [/ QUOTE ] Not even close. [/ QUOTE ] http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594 From the article: [ QUOTE ] ...I know I've seen Greg give Barry the same thing I was taking," Sheffield said. "I didn't see him taking those red beans , but I seen him taking this (clear) and this cream here." [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I still don't quite get this one....are you saying that my name really is based on the mexican steroid, and that I'm lying when I tell you it isn't? Or do you really think you're the first person in the last 4 years to notice that my name is also used as a slang term for an illicit substance and find it ironic when we're discussing Bonds? Usually the others pointed it out in passing, and didn't make it a central point of their argument...quoting it several times in knee-slapping glee. I mean, seriously. [/ QUOTE ] Do I think you are lying? Maybe? If not it is just a huge coincidence I guess. This is another one of those things where I take different pieces of evidence that aren't exactly facts and come to a conclusion that seems to fit. What are those called again? Oh yeah, opinions. Also, not a central point of my argument. Just a passing nugget for those who might have missed it previously. |
Re: Bonds Responds
Question for RedBean,
If steroids were illegal from 96-02, doesn't that imply that they were against the rules? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
1. Sheff says he recieved the same thing Barry did, a clear and cream substance. Greg testified on Sept 3, 2003, that he gave steroids to his "little guys", Benito Santiago, Armando Rios, Marvin Benard, and Bobby Estella. He never mentioned giving steroids to Barry Bonds or Gary Sheffield. Greg, in fact, testified that Barry Bonds had never taken "the clear" or "the cream". The only thing "damning" with this statement is that, for all we know, Sheff and Bonds both recieved flaxseed oil and arthritic balm from Greg. [/ QUOTE ] For all we know, Sheff and Bonds both recieved "the cream" and "the clear" from Greg. But because Greg says he never gave his highest paid, highest profile clients these things even though he admits to giving them to other clients we should give him the benefit of the doubt? Inconclusive either way, but certainly does nothing to clear BB/GS. [ QUOTE ] 2. Sheff says he never saw Barry taking "red beans". Not very damning, considering this would be exculpatory. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. Just included the whole quote. [ QUOTE ] 3. Sheff says he saw Bonds taking a clear substance, and a cream substance. Did Sheff see Bonds taking flaxseed oil and arthritic balm? Even Sheff says he doesn't know, and he isn't sure. Yet, you think it is "damning" because you project your opinion that you WANT it to be steroids, rather than looking at it objectively. Funny how that works...huh? [/ QUOTE ] Right, so he is not sure. Which is fine with me. I am not sure. But when you add up the pieces it seems pretty damning. 1) Greg Anderson and Victor Conte make/distribute PED's. 2) BB/GS/other players work with Greg Anderson. 3) Other players implicated in getting PED's from Anderson. 4) BB/GS willingly take a substance that they think is flaxseed oil and arthritic balm, but are not sure that is what it was. 5) Profit? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ballplayers dont usually just go from base knocking smallish guys to giant huge-head home run hitters well past the time their body should have started slowing down. [/ QUOTE ] Home Runs 1988 NL-24-9 1990 NL-33-4 1992 NL-34-2 1993 NL-46-1 1994 NL-37-3 1995 NL-33-4 1996 NL-42-2 1997 NL-40-4 1998 NL-37-9 2000 NL-49-2 2001 NL-73-1 2002 NL-46-2 2003 NL-45-2 2004 NL-45-4 Oops, Barry's been a consistent HR hitter for his entire career. [/ QUOTE ] HR by PA 1988 23 3.9% 1989 24 2.8% 1990 25 5.4% 1991 26 4.0% 1992 27 5.6% 1993 28 6.9% 1994 29 7.9% 1995 30 5.2% 1996 31 6.3% 1997 32 5.8% 1998 33 5.4% 1999 34 7.9% 2000 35 8.2% 2001 36 11.0% 2002 37 7.5% 2003 38 8.2% 2004 39 7.3% 2005 40 9.8% 2006 41 5.3% Oops. Number of HR's is largely irrelevant. This is a much better way to compare his numbers. Is it just random that his 3 best years happen to coincide with the time table for his supected steroid use? Again, this is not damning in its own right, it should just be another piece of the puzzle. |
Re: Bonds Responds
Manbearpig,
His HR by PA is going to drift upwards when the general trend of HR rate of the league is drifting upward. I posted his raw number by year to point out that he's been a top 5 HR in his league compared to his peers over the majority of his career. This isn't like Brady Anderson's retarded year in 1996. |
Re: Bonds Responds
Wait, people thought Bonds was on steroids in 1994?
|
Re: Bonds Responds
Here is another interesting chart:
YR AGE HR/BIP HR/H 1986 22 5.1% 17.4% 1987 23 5.4% 17.4% 1988 24 5.3% 15.8% 1989 25 3.9% 13.2% 1990 26 7.6% 21.2% 1991 27 5.7% 16.8% 1992 28 8.4% 23.1% 1993 29 10.0% 25.4% 1994 30 10.6% 30.3% 1995 31 7.8% 22.1% 1996 32 9.5% 26.4% 1997 33 9.0% 25.8% 1998 34 8.0% 22.2% 1999 35 11.6% 36.6% 2000 36 12.2% 33.3% 2001 37 19.1% 46.8% 2002 38 12.9% 30.9% 2003 39 13.6% 33.8% 2004 40 13.6% 33.3% |
Re: Bonds Responds
Why aren't his 2006 or 2007 numbers on there?
Edit: And how does this all compare to the league-wide trend? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Manbearpig, His HR by PA is going to drift upwards when the general trend of HR rate of the league is drifting upward. I posted his raw number by year to point out that he's been a top 5 HR in his league compared to his peers over the majority of his career. This isn't like Brady Anderson's retarded year in 1996. [/ QUOTE ] Completely agree with you. That is why I qualified it by saying it is in no way indvidually damning. However, while his home run rates did increase at the same time as league rates did, he was also doing it at an age when you would expect him to be declining. |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, people thought Bonds was on steroids in 1994? [/ QUOTE ] 29 years old. Largely considered a "prime age", no? |
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't his 2006 or 2007 numbers on there? Edit: And how does this all compare to the league-wide trend? [/ QUOTE ] Not my chart. But his increase is almost certainly much higher than the league increase. I am trying to find some numbers now. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.