|
|
#281
10-27-2007, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
As a group, no it isn't 50/50. There's documented evidence of the amount of steroid use. If you just brought me random people one by one and asked me to guess whether they took steroids I'd say no every time because the majority of people on earth haven't. If you brought me bodybuilders or professional wrestlers one by one, I'd (probably) say yes because I think there's a greater than 50 percent chance that a random bodybuilder has used them.
When you talk about one, specific individual, there's only 1 sample available. Barry Bonds has lived ONE life. He will not exist in 1,000,000 trial lives that we can put together some sort of percentage of how many times he took steroids in those trials. Maybe I'm not describing this as well as I'm thinking about it. But, let's say you think Barry Bonds took steroids 85% of the time. The question I have to ask is 85% of what time? The idea of putting a percentage on something that's already happened just doesn't make sense to me. Yetis don't exist and you can't measure what an "evil thought" is. I'm not explaining myself as well as I'd like. 
|
|
#282
10-27-2007, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
You are describing it fine - you just aren't quite getting it. The odds of any unknown past event having occured are not 50/50; instead, as with predicting future events, you can use the available evidence to make an educated guess.
Perhaps it would be easier if you thought of it this way: Bonds is to be given a fullproof truth serum and asked if he ever took steroids. The odds of him saying yes are certainly not 50/50. The flaw in your logic shows in the bodybuilder example. You claim that if a string came to you, you would guess that each had taken steroids, since in the bodybuilding community greater than 50% have used steroids. Yet you then claim that with one specific individual, the odds are 50/50. Clearly, if the odds for each individual are only 50/50 then it would be impossible for a higher percentage of the total group to be users.
|
|
#283
10-27-2007, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
As a group, no it isn't 50/50. There's documented evidence of the amount of steroid use. If you just brought me random people one by one and asked me to guess whether they took steroids I'd say no every time because the majority of people on earth haven't. If you brought me bodybuilders or professional wrestlers one by one, I'd (probably) say yes because I think there's a greater than 50 percent chance that a random bodybuilder has used them. [/ QUOTE ] But Bonds is not a random individual. There is ton of circumstantial evidence pointing towards Bonds having been a user. And even if it were a random individual the odds would not be 50/50. If 1% of the population uses then the odds of a random being a user would be 1/100. If this is an elaborate level that you have perpetuated through multiple posts.....well played, sir. well played.
|
|
#284
10-27-2007, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
Govman,
I own an MLB stadium I have two options sell it out charging $10 a ticket sell all but one seats charing $11 per seat, what should I choose? Please explain how this is relevant at all [ QUOTE ] Japan has the right idea about baseball YOu know most of the fans at last weeks seahawks football game missed the opening kickoff because they were too busy cheering a BASEBALL player from japan (Ichiro) who is a class act. [/ QUOTE ] Who did you want to win in the ALCS? Please don't get politics posters in this thread they can argue and use rhetoric so much better than us common folk. BSF, Please post some evidence of a teammate disliking him or hating him I would prefer you not post the ASU stuff because as RedBean brought up people at 18-20 are different people by 30-40.
|
|
#285
10-27-2007, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
Saw this article and had to post it for RedBean:
Shatner disheartened in being left out of the new Star Trek movie http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071027/...illiam_shatner See, if Bonds were a little nicer, he'd moved up from bitter to disheartened!!
|
|
#286
10-29-2007, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
I hear you. It is tough to make a decision without all the evidence, but with what you know I think it is possible to make an educated guess about the question at hand. Is this not how everything works? Do you ever really have complete knowledge? I don't really need a number from you, this last post at least made it clear that you do have concerns/doubt that he might have taken PED's. That really all I was looking for. FWIW, I am not 100% positive that he ever took them. Without a direct admission of guilt or a failed test I dont know how I ever could be 100%. But I think it is well above an even bet that he did. [/ QUOTE ] You're asking me to make an "educated guess" based upon "what we do know". But...what we "know" is what has been illegally leaked, and then repackaged in the paraphrased words of a few authors of a book which has been deemed "unable to be viewed as factual." In short, we don't know anything....so making a guess is anything but "educated". What I do know is that Bonds has not violated the MLB steroid policy, nor has he been convicted of any crime. Play Ball!
|
|
#287
10-29-2007, 05:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And I'll wager any amount of money you want, if you'd like to mutually agree on an escrow agent and an arbitrator to determine the fact's vailidity. I nominate anybody in green, let me know which are acceptable. [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not indisputable fact that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [/ QUOTE ] It's indisputable fact that all sides involved have conceded, from the DA running the grand jury, to MLB management, to Bonds himself....Bonds has not violated the policy. Period. Exclamation Point. No question mark.
|
|
#288
10-29-2007, 05:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
There is ton of circumstantial evidence pointing towards Bonds having been a user. [/ QUOTE ] Except that most of it isn't credible, and can't be viewed as factual, and only carries weight in the court of public opinion, where the standards are much lower, and it doesn't bother folks if the evidence isn't at all credible The amount of actual credible evidence that exists has so far not even been enough to constitute "probable cause" to proceed to trial.
|
|
#289
10-29-2007, 08:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And I'll wager any amount of money you want, if you'd like to mutually agree on an escrow agent and an arbitrator to determine the fact's vailidity. I nominate anybody in green, let me know which are acceptable. [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not indisputable fact that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [/ QUOTE ] It's indisputable fact that all sides involved have conceded, from the DA running the grand jury, to MLB management, to Bonds himself....Bonds has not violated the policy. Period. Exclamation Point. No question mark. [/ QUOTE ] It is only indisputable that he hasn't been caught, not that he hasn't violated it. You haven't been caught cheating on your taxes (I assume), but that doesn't mean it's indisputable that you haven't violated the tax laws.
|
|
#290
10-29-2007, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
It is only indisputable that he hasn't been caught, not that he hasn't violated it. [/ QUOTE ] It's quite apparent that you don't understand what constitutes a violation of the policy, as it is explcitly defined in the policy. Either that, or you just don't want to understand it and let it get in the way of your hate. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
