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 ]