Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread
 

For those that didn't catch Bonds on MSNBC, here are excerpts directly from the transcript, in the context of the interviewer's question.

Obviously, in the articles on ESPN/CNNSI, they only include snippets they wanted.......But what really amazes me, is in their stories on the interview, they <u>completely left out</u> any mention of Bonds responses to the questions regarding whether or not he unfairly broke the record, and his response to the myth that he said he "never knowingly took steroids."

You'd think those responses to those specific questions would be extremely relevant to the allegations being made in the media over the past 4 years.....but apparently the major sports media outlets didn't want his responses to those questions included in their stories.

Imagine that.


ON SUSPICION THAT HE BROKE HANK AARON’S HOME RUN RECORD BY USING ILLEGAL STEROIDS:
[ QUOTE ]

<u>GRAY:</u> And to those who believe that you have unfairly obtained this record through the use of performance enhancing drugs, what would your response to them be?

<u>BONDS:</u> That’s not true and it’s not right and it’s not fair to me. It’s not fair to me, it’s not true. It’s not fair.

<u>GRAY:</u> Do you think in some ways you are taking the brunt and you’re being unfairly singled out for the entire industry and the problems they have had?

<u>BONDS:</u> I truly believe I have been singled out definitely, 100%.


[/ QUOTE ]


ON "NEVER KNOWINGLY" TAKING STEROIDS
[ QUOTE ]

<u>GRAY:</u> In light of the fact that you have said on numerous occasions that you have never knowingly used steroids. How do you explain that you got better with time, when father time seems to catch up with everyone, and peoples’ careers go down with age, your production levels increased.

<u>BONDS:</u> Hank Aaron’s production increased as he got older, Alex Rodriguez’ productions increasing as he’s getting older, and mine ain’t really gone down yet. Think about it. I don’t think it’s fair to say that I made any statements that, one that is in the courts that is not, that you’re not exactly reading the whole entire statement, I don’t think it’s fair to make that statement, you’re saying something that I have said that I know that I have not said.

<u>GRAY:</u> And that would be knowingly.

<u>BONDS:</u> Unknowingly, ha, it’s not even in my vocabulary

<u>GRAY:</u> Let me just say it so that everybody knows it, the knowingly comes from what has been reportedly leaked of the grand jury testimony.

<u>BONDS:</u> That’s not even in my vocabulary. I just don’t think it’s fair.


[/ QUOTE ]

See the part where Bonds explains that "you're not exactly reading the whole statment" and "you're saying something I have not said".

Where have we heard that before? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

And the part about Hank's production increasing with age....where have we seen that before? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

And, imagine the surprise when the transcripts are finally unsealed, and we learn that all along, the leaked version was indeed, "not to be viewed as factual".

Do you think those in the media who ran with the "leaked version" will issue retractions?

Or is this possibly why they don't want to include this response in their versions of the story about his interview.....selectively leaving it out because it contradicts their previous accounts of the transcripts?

Especially considering the clock is ticking on the statute of limitations, and the transcripts won't stay sealed forever.

Sweet...


ON HIS IMAGE
[ QUOTE ]

<u>GRAY:</u> But it’s the image and the perception and you know you’re going to have to deal with that.

<u>BONDS:</u> Yes, my image isn’t the best of all times, I believe it’s like Ali would say, mine isn’t the best of all times, his was the best of all times, but that was my downfall Jim, I didn’t want that lifestyle, I wanted to go to work, and I wanted to go home and I wanted to be with my friends.


[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Big Daddy.

He wanted to play ball, and spend time with his friends and family.

He didn't want to be anyone's role model, it's not his job to raise your kids, nor did he want to peddle you soft drinks and tennis shoes by being someone's corporate logo house negro, and he didn't feel the need to kiss anybody's ass to earn his keep.

He did that with his bat, and he did it on the field.

And apparently, that bothers some people.

VIVA LA BONDS!
LONG LIVE THE HR KING!

Re: Bonds Responds
 

ok. Redbean gets his official Bonds thread. Everyone argue and troll each other to your hearts content. But, this is the place. Tangents that derail other threads will be discouraged, and new Bonds threads will be likely be locked.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

Haha this stuff is getting kind of crazy. We definitely dont need a caffeine thread. It is funny that that even got made into such a big deal since it isnt even applicable to anyone outside of, like...me, and it doesnt do anything to any of the pro- or anti-steroids arguments. It just makes a couple med students hypocrites is all. Oh well. RedBean, congrats on having your own stomping grounds.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

He was upset that caffine debate distracted from high quality Bonds trolling, so I figured that if the real official Bonds thread had his name as the OP, people would know what they were getting into. Plus, he obviously put a lot of effort into this one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

New title &gt;&gt;&gt; Old title

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
He was upset that caffine debate distracted from high quality Bonds trolling, so I figured that if the real official Bonds thread had his name as the OP, people would know what they were getting into. Plus, he obviously put a lot of effort into this one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

For the record, I think that Bonds is both the Greatest of All Time, as well as a cheater, but I really don't care that he cheated, since it was IMO known and condoned by the players, the union, and ownership. So I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this whole topic.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I think that Bonds is both the Greatest of All Time, as well as a cheater, but I really don't care that he cheated, since it was IMO known and condoned by the players, the union, and ownership. So I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this whole topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is really close to GOAT, he'd probably get my vote, and I also think he probably took steroids and/or HGH. I'm very much on the fence with regards to whether he cheated or not, leaning towards not. Definitely dont care though.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also think he probably took steroids and/or HGH. I'm very much on the fence with regards to whether he cheated or not

[/ QUOTE ]

I figure its all one and the same. I'm definitely not going to get into the semantical debate about that point though.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think he probably took steroids and/or HGH. I'm very much on the fence with regards to whether he cheated or not

[/ QUOTE ]

I figure its all one and the same. I'm definitely not going to get into the semantical debate about that point though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, as far as a casual opinion.

But if your livelihood and personal freedom depended on it, you probably wouldn't think it was one and the same, or consider it a nitty semantical argument.

It'd be a pretty big deal.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think he probably took steroids and/or HGH. I'm very much on the fence with regards to whether he cheated or not

[/ QUOTE ]

I figure its all one and the same. I'm definitely not going to get into the semantical debate about that point though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, as far as a casual opinion.

But if your livelihood and personal freedom depended on it, you probably wouldn't think it was one and the same, or consider it a nitty semantical argument.

It'd be a pretty big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, his freedom doesn't depend on whether or not he cheated, it depends on whether or not he broke the law.

And as far as I know, as long as he doesn't fail a drug test (or go to jail for breaking the law), his livelihood shouldn't be threatened.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think he is really close to GOAT, he'd probably get my vote,


[/ QUOTE ]

In relative terms, it's obviously Ruth.
In absolute terms, it's obviously Bonds.

[ QUOTE ]

and I also think he probably took steroids and/or HGH.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he took any steroids/HGH that were illegal by law or that were banned under the MLB steroid policy.

[ QUOTE ]

the I'm very much on the fence with regards to whether he cheated or not, leaning towards not.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. I don't think he cheated.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fairness, his freedom doesn't depend on whether or not he cheated, it depends on whether or not he broke the law.


[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, his freedom depends on the result of the investigation that stems from it's beginning on the desire to prove that he cheated at baseball.

[ QUOTE ]

And as far as I know, as long as he doesn't fail a drug test (or go to jail for breaking the law), his livelihood shouldn't be threatened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, but when I say that, apparently it's a semantical argument.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I think that Bonds is both the Greatest of All Time, as well as a cheater, but I really don't care that he cheated, since it was IMO known and condoned by the players, the union, and ownership. So I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this whole topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This pretty much sums up my opinion, although I never even got to see Willie Mays play, so all I have to look at is a pretty stat sheet.

As far as those knowledgeable and complicit in the whole PED mess, whenever I see Selig getting all sanctimonious about the issue, it is pretty disgusting.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as those knowledgeable and complicit in the whole PED mess, whenever I see Selig getting all sanctimonious about the issue, it is pretty disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair to Selig, in addition to the league being made aware of steroid problems in an official and documented capacity as early as 1994, courtesy of the FBI, the league did try and do it's part as early as 1991 in attempting to get the current testing language into the CBA....but their attempts were balked at by the union, and they ultimately agreed not to include it.

But in reality, given the strength of the union and their refusal to cave on the issue....what would you expect the league to do? Lock the players out? Run to the media?

The league itself was in a no-win situation. The union, and ultimately it's members, are by far more to blame for the resistance to address the problem......which didn't get properly addressed until outside forces came to the league's aide and made an agreement by the union necessary versus the alternative.

And as far as all those players who were against steroids and wanted the league to do something....you certainly didn't hear them breaking the union line and speaking out about it at the time it was going on....it's those guys that disgust me more with the hypocrisy of feigned concern and indignation for the league, when they themselves were keeping their mouths shut at the time for their own benefit.

Granted, the league could have taken the hard line, but risking a strike or labor unrest over an issue that wasn't making headlines and wasn't important to the fans and media wasn't worth the trouble it would create in facing one of the most concentrated and powerful labor unions in the country.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ 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 ]

Still waiting....

I laid out all the parameters in the other thread.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I think that Bonds is the Greatest of All Time, as well as a cheater, but I really don't care that he cheated, since it was IMO known and condoned by the players, the union, and ownership. So I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this whole topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty spot on with my thoughts. If he is not the GOAT he is pretty damn close. My personal opinion is that did use PED's and that was cheating, even if it was not explicitly against the rules. However, being as it was not explicitly against the rules I think any retroactive punishment is a stupid thing for baseball to do.

My argument against RB has always been about whether or not it is likely Bonds ever used PED's, with a slight tangent on whether using them was cheating before there was a policy.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You label Paul a racist, but defend Bonds.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're presence in this thread is becoming all the more clear.

Question: Are you really here to discuss Bonds, or is it that you just have some unrelated and unresolved issues with *me*?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is from the other thread but I wanted to make a quick mention of it here.

My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread. The reason I brought it up was to show you the difference in how you interpreted similar evidence. In one case you say we have incomplete info and should wait to make a decision. In the other you take the same type of disputable evidence and are 100% sure of the outcome.

That was my issue. Nothing personal at all.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is from the other thread but I wanted to make a quick mention of it here.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for helping to keep it all in one spot here.

Re: Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread
 

Congratulations on getting your own thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't have said it better myself, Big Daddy.

He wanted to play ball, and spend time with his friends and family.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you think his relationship with his teammates and others (not just the media) was good or bad compared to others?

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't want to be anyone's role model, it's not his job to raise your kids, nor did he want to peddle you soft drinks and tennis shoes by being someone's corporate logo house negro, and he didn't feel the need to kiss anybody's ass to earn his keep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he should feel the need to give back to the game and to the fans that pay him for playing this game.

[ QUOTE ]
He did that with his bat, and he did it on the field.


[/ QUOTE ]

And he did it well, I'll give you that.

[ QUOTE ]
VIVA LA BONDS!
LONG LIVE THE HR KING!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, do it out of the spotlight and go away (Bonds), since you just want to be with your family anyway.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Haha this stuff is getting kind of crazy. We definitely dont need a caffeine thread. It is funny that that even got made into such a big deal since it isnt even applicable to anyone outside of, like...me, and it doesnt do anything to any of the pro- or anti-steroids arguments. It just makes a couple med students hypocrites is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong about the caffeine. You may have argued it better than I can (won't be the first time), but you are sadly wrong.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I think that Bonds is both the Greatest of All Time, as well as a cheater, but I really don't care that he cheated, since it was IMO known and condoned by the players, the union, and ownership. So I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this whole topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is really close to GOAT, he'd probably get my vote, and I also think he probably took steroids and/or HGH. I'm very much on the fence with regards to whether he cheated or not, leaning towards not. Definitely dont care though.

[/ QUOTE ]

We actually agree on most of this, except that I'd say he cheated. Of course, I believe that a lot of players have cheated in his era, so my criticism of Bonds in that respected is mostly muted.

For RedBean, when I say cheated, I don't mean "failed a drug test" or even "took drugs/steroids and wasn't caught", I mean he took something artifically that significantly increased his ability to play the game. I also understand that Mcgwire and Clemens most likely did the same.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

In relative terms, it's obviously Ruth.
In absolute terms, it's obviously Bonds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well worded and I'd have a tough time arguing against it (hell, I have a tough time arguing anything!).

But, since Bonds just wants to spend time with his family, I wish he'd go do it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he took any steroids/HGH that were illegal by law or that were banned under the MLB steroid policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "illegal my law", does that mean if a physician subscribes it, you consider it legel and not cheating?

The real question for you is: Did Bonds take steroids at all?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you continue to bring it up in every unrelated Bonds thread......

[ QUOTE ]

In one case you say we have incomplete info and should wait to make a decision. In the other you take the same type of disputable evidence and are 100% sure of the outcome.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go, once and for all, since you're apparently dying to talk about RP in every Bonds thread....

In one case, RP has admitted responsibility.
In the other case, Bonds has denied the allegations.

Big difference..

In one case, we are electing the leader of the free world.
In the other case, a man is being paid to hit curveballs.

Big difference...

In one case, RP has admitted being dishonest for his own political gain.
In the other case, Bonds has maintained he is telling the truth.

Big difference

And lastly....

In one case, we have a political candidate <u>who is asking for our votes</u> lying about the origin of disgustingly racist views and the defending them on the basis that he thinks they are accurate.

In the other case, you have a baseball player <u>who is not asking you for anything</u> and just wants to show up for work and swing the bat.

Big Difference.

If you think it's the "same type" of disputable evidence, then I just don't know what to say, other than take it to another thread if you want to talk about presidential candidates and their defense of racist views.

And FWIW, I'm not voting for Bonds in the presidential elections either.

Re: Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, he should feel the need to give back to the game and to the fans that pay him for playing this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to look at the back of his baseball card and see just how much Bonds gave to the game.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
For RedBean, when I say cheated, I don't mean "failed a drug test" or even "took drugs/steroids and wasn't caught", I mean he took something artifically that significantly increased his ability to play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is the common theme with everyone....their definition of "cheating" is what they arbitrarily decide they want it to be based on their own personal preferences......with complete disregard for whether or not it was in violation of the rules that govern the sport.

Arbitrarily imposing your preferences on "artificially increasing your ability to play the game" in determining cheating is a fuzzy determination that isn't applied consistently to all areas......and in my personal opinion, I defer to the rules that the players agree to play by in judging whether or not they violated them.

But out of curiousity...using the same logical standard.....do you similar view players who had artifical enhancements to their eyesight via lasik surgery to be cheating? What about players who have had Tommy John surgery to resurrect their careers....when in the past, this wouldnt have been available to them?......and players who get cortisone shots that allow them to play when they otherwise wouldn't be able?.......taking a tylenol for a headache?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

When you say "illegal my law", does that mean if a physician subscribes it, you consider it legel and not cheating?


[/ QUOTE ]

It means I don't think Bonds broke any laws, nor violated any rules of baseball.

He played by the rules as they were agreed too.....just as we expect everyone to do.....and not necessarily as they would be interpreted arbitrarily by random fans who don't like him because he hit a three-run homer against their favorite team.

[ QUOTE ]

The real question for you is: Did Bonds take steroids at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real answer is we don't know....and it doesn't matter if it wasn't illegal or in violation of the rules of baseball.

It only matters to those who wish to impose their own definition of the cheating, disregarding completely the rules that govern the sport.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
My argument against RB has always been about whether or not it is likely Bonds ever used PED's, with a slight tangent on whether using them was cheating before there was a policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought your argument with me was because you objected to me saying that that Bonds didn't cheat?

Like I said before, I don't begrudge you having an opinion that Bonds cheated based on whatever personal bias you choose....like I've said, my primary interest is in discussing the facts, not your opinion.

After all, your opinion is your opinion....it can be whatever you want, and that's fine with me.....

But, it doesn't change the facts. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

When it comes to your opinion and the facts, the two paths don't cross, like I said in the other thread.

--

Reposted from the other thread:
[ QUOTE ]

My opinion is, even in the face of all the facts that you have presented and that I agree are facts, that it is likely that Barry Bonds at one time used an illegal substance as defined by MLB rules or by law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I can respect your opinion, even though it lacks any proof or credible evidence. After all, it's just your opinion and you can think whatever you like. Christ, after all you think Hank, Willie, Brett, and Smitty are 99.98% likely to be cheaters, or whatever arbitrary number you assigned.

The facts say different, but they usually don't get in the way of people's opinions when people don't want them too.

You've made it clear you conceded the facts as accurate, and aren't disputing them, and all I'm only really concerned about the facts....not so much with speculation and conjecture, nor with the opinions of random joes based on their own personal bias.

If you change your mind though, and want to discuss the facts, lemme know...otherwise your personal opinion has been duly noted and I concede your ability to form it based upon whatever arbitrary reasons you prefer.

Just realize they don't change the facts.

Have a nice day. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

0% chance of cheating for both groups between 1996-2002, as their wasn't a policy.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The real question for you is: Did Bonds take steroids at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real answer is we don't know....and it doesn't matter if it wasn't illegal or in violation of the rules of baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters in many people's opinions.

Again: Do YOU think Barry Bonds took steroids at any time for any reason? Not your facts, what is YOUR opinion? Yes or no?

It only matters to those who wish to impose their own definition of the cheating, disregarding completely the rules that govern the sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
It only matters to those who wish to impose their own definition of the cheating, disregarding completely the rules that govern the sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

0% chance of cheating for both groups between 1996-2002, as their wasn't a policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you continue to bring it up in every unrelated Bonds thread......



[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I am gonna drop this one. I brought it up once to question your thought process. I completely understand all your points, I just don't agree that you used the same reasoning to reach those points. But again, just my opinion.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

Again: Do YOU think Barry Bonds took steroids at any time for any reason? Not your facts, what is YOUR opinion? Yes or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Barry Bonds played by the rules of the game.

Whether or not *he* conformed to *your* personal rules doesn't matter to *me*.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Again: Do YOU think Barry Bonds took steroids at any time for any reason? Not your facts, what is YOUR opinion? Yes or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Barry Bonds played by the rules of the game.

Whether or not *he* conformed to *your* personal rules doesn't matter to *me*.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Do YOU think that Barry Bonds used steroids, for any reason?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It only matters to those who wish to impose their own definition of the cheating, disregarding completely the rules that govern the sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't my quote. I accidentally left that in while quoting RedBean.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you continue to bring it up in every unrelated Bonds thread......



[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I am gonna drop this one. I completely understand all your points, I just don't agree that you used the same reasoning to reach those points. But again, just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you don't agree, because you yourself didn't use consistent reasoning concerning the two situations.

In Bonds case, you said that despite the facts, and in the presence of only questionable evidence, you assign a 80% likelihood that he cheated in the other thread.

In the case of RP, in another thread, you said that despite him admitting responsibility, and you'd assign a 1% chance.

One guy admits responsibility, facts support it, you assign a 1% probability.
Other guy denies allegations, facts support it, you assign a 80% probability.

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

Funny how it works, huh?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

RB,

While I do not dispute that all of the facts you have are correct, I also do not think that known facts tell the whole story all the time. I think you would agree with this.

So no, I don't feel any need to have a conversation around the facts. The facts are not going to change on some internet message board.

The argument should center around the unknown, the possibilities, our own opinions. I think the fact that you have to constantly fall back on what is "known" is pretty damning in its own right. The fact that you shy away from drawing your own opinions from all the conjecture, all the rumors, is damning.

This world is one of incomplete information. You take what you know and make up your mind based on that. Waiting for all the details to come to light is an impossible task. We will never know all the minutia surrounding Barry Bonds and his life. Nor would I want to. So what most of us have done is take that incomplete information, add it all together, and come to our own conclusion.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you continue to bring it up in every unrelated Bonds thread......



[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I am gonna drop this one. I completely understand all your points, I just don't agree that you used the same reasoning to reach those points. But again, just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you don't agree, because you yourself didn't use consistent reasoning concerning the two situations.

In Bonds case, you said that despite the facts, and in the presence of only questionable evidence, you assign a 80% likelihood that he cheated in the other thread.

In the case of RP, in another thread, you said that despite him admitting responsibility, and you'd assign a 1% chance.

One guy admits responsibility, facts support it, you assign a 1% probability.
Other guy denies allegations, facts support it, you assign a 80% probability.

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

Funny how it works, huh?

[/ 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.

So while yes, Ron Paul admitted to writing the paper, he also said he admitted that fact under pressure from his staffers and that he in fact did not write the paper. You can believe that or not, completely a personal decision.

So can you call him a liar? Sure thing. Would not bother me one bit. He messed up. He did lie. But to label him a racist, in the face of 30 years of evidence contrary to that, is disingenuous. We have other speeches, papers, and voting records to use to evaluate our opinion of RP.

With Bonds, we are working with a whole lot less real evidence. We don't have a record of steroid tests, or things he has said speaking out against steroid use. We have to use incomplete information to make our choice.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ 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.