Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Sporting Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-04-2007, 10:19 AM
BigSoonerFan BigSoonerFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Augusta National
Posts: 1,937
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-04-2007, 10:23 AM
BigSoonerFan BigSoonerFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Augusta National
Posts: 1,937
Default 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.....
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-04-2007, 10:33 AM
vhawk01 vhawk01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GHoFFANMWYD
Posts: 9,098
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-04-2007, 10:46 AM
oe39 oe39 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 511
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-04-2007, 06:06 PM
RedBean RedBean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,358
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-05-2007, 12:11 AM
vhawk01 vhawk01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GHoFFANMWYD
Posts: 9,098
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-05-2007, 02:15 PM
manbearpig manbearpig is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 480
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-05-2007, 02:20 PM
manbearpig manbearpig is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 480
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-05-2007, 02:24 PM
MikeyPatriot MikeyPatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,301
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-05-2007, 02:27 PM
manbearpig manbearpig is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 480
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.