New Book details Barry Bond's Steriod Use

[mweb]

We assumed a bunch of stuff but this goes a lot deeper than just assumptions. It seems pretty earth shattering to me. Great stuff. You're probably right about hearing most of the book reported in excerpts and other places but it sure sounds interesting to me. I'd consider getting it although I'm cheap enough to wait and get it at the library someday. lol

We had more than assumptions before. We had info from the grand jury hearing and we've had Barry make public comments which basically were admissions to using steroids.

[mweb]

All we had before was Bonds saying that he had unknowingly taken what he though was flaxseed (sp?) oil. Nothing like this. Nothing! He never admitted to anything close to this. He never admitted to knowingly taking steroids in an attempt to bolster his career. No comparison to what has been reported up to this point.

We had the cream and the clear from the balco hearing. Yeah, we didn't have the knowing part, well no one believed that anyway. But, you're right that this is a lot more info than we had before, I just don't see why this is so earth shattering.

[mweb]

We had the cream and the clear from the balco hearing. Yeah, we didn't have the knowing part, well no one believed that anyway. But, you're right that this is a lot more info than we had before, I just don't see why this is so earth shattering.

To elaborate, I think for something to be earth shattering, you have to be surprised by it. None of this is surprising at all to me.

[BRobinsonfan]

To this day I don't understand why Bonds wasn't called before the Congressional Committee. It would have been interesting to see how he would have handled it.

[YardBird]

To this day I don't understand why Bonds wasn't called before the Congressional Committee. It would have been interesting to see how he would have handled it.

He'd have played the "Congress just hates my family" card.

[66-70-83-??]

IMO this extensive documentation makes the HOF debate kinda interesting, more so than raffy, although one could certainly argue 1) he wasn't caught and 2) prior to 1998 (assuming that is when he started using PEDs) he had already had a 12 year career likely HOF worthy.

Will the HOF penalize Raffy because he got caught ? Probably so, and it would be justified.

But, I understand the argument by those who ask- is it fair that he becomes the scapegoat for all those we "know" used (Sosa, McGwire, etc) but weren't caught ?

As far as Bonds having a HOF worthy career prior to 1998- it doesn't matter to me: if he was a heavy user, he is not hall worthy.

Rose and Shoeless had hall worthy careers before their transgressions, too.

[mojmann]

I think some folks are downplaying the revelations here. This is huge: Much of the reporting here is based on factual documents either legally obtained or leaked to the reporters.

It is now beyond dispute: Bonds was a heavy, heavy user of steroids.

The things that were revealed today are major news.

[RShack]

I think some folks are downplaying the revelations here. This is huge: Much of the reporting here is based on factual documents either legally obtained or leaked to the reporters. It is now beyond dispute: Bonds was a heavy, heavy user of steroids. The things that were revealed today are major news.

Do we know if he did them when they were illegal? I think he's a jerk, but it's hard to penalize somebody for doing stuff when it was legal to do it.

[bgtimber75]

Legal in baseball or legal in everyday society? Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't steroids illegal in the United States without a perscription?

[Trace21230]

Do we know if he did them when they were illegal? I think he's a jerk, but it's hard to penalize somebody for doing stuff when it was legal to do it.

I was listening to some sports show this afternoon (can't remember which one), and there was some knowledgeable baseball type that responded to the point you are making. He pointed out that Joe Walsh, who is the proud owner of the lowest ERA in MLB history, was a spitballer. There was no "rule" against spitballs at the turn of the century, yet nobody considers Walsh to be a "great."

"Legal" does not mean ethical, moral, laudable, or worthy of recognition. If the material in this book turns out to be true, then Bonds should be treated like Walsh: forgotten as a cheat. In no event should he be in the Hall of Fame. What a disservice to the memory of the real greats, like Kirby Puckett, if Bonds is permitted to enter those hallowed halls.

I should also say that this couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Enjoy this publicity, Barry--you deserve it.

[scOtt's squEEze]

Do we know if he did them when they were illegal? I think he's a jerk, but it's hard to penalize somebody for doing stuff when it was legal to do it.

Yes, we do. His ex-gf's testimony puts his steroid use prior to the 2000 season, but his trainer/friend Greg Anderson went on record in the book as saying Bonds was using all the way through 2002.

Barry's already spoken to the press about the book, saying he won't read it or comment about it (Chronicle article here):

Asked about the book excerpt on Tuesday in the clubhouse at Scottsdale Stadium, Bonds said to a small group of reporters, "I don't do interviews, guys, not those." Bonds said he won't be reading the book.

"I won't even look at it. For what? There's no need to," said Bonds, who has repeatedly denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

I can't wait for the Giants to get rid of this albatross, I've loathed him for years.

[Ohfan67]

Legal in baseball or legal in everyday society? Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't steroids illegal in the United States without a perscription?

Yes they were illegal, hence the guilty pleas in the Balco case.

[RShack]

He pointed out that Joe Walsh, who is the proud owner of the lowest ERA in MLB history, was a spitballer. There was no "rule" against spitballs at the turn of the century, yet nobody considers Walsh to be a "great."

"Legal" does not mean ethical, moral, laudable, or worthy of recognition. If the material in this book turns out to be true, then Bonds should be treated like Walsh: forgotten as a cheat.

Wait a second. When the spitter was legal, using it was NOT cheating. It was part of the game. When Gaylord Perry used it, it *was* cheating. But not way-back-then.

Let's imagine that 10 years from now they decide to make resin bags illegal. Does that mean Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson and Jim Palmer suddenly become cheaters. No, it does not. Let's imagine they make pine tar and batting gloves illegal. Does that make the hitters who use them now cheaters? Just recently, they've made using speed illegal, but for decades players routinely used speed, especially late in the season. Does that mean that you'll consider all of them cheaters? Tom Glavine made his entire career throwing pitches that, according to the letter of the rule book, were 4"-6" outside. But the umps gave him strikes. Then they changed how they call the strike zone, and now he's hosed. So, do we discount Glavine's wins because he was a cheater?

I do not wish to justify either steriods-in-general or Bonds in particular. My point is that the shame of steroids belongs to the whole game. Both the owners and the players. Both groups knew all about it (or should have known) and they did absolutely nothing until the HR numbers got crazy.

It's easier to find a scapegoat, especially when he's a jerk. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Legal-and-enforced vs illegal-and/or-unenforced makes a huge difference.

[Max Power]

I was listening to some sports show this afternoon (can't remember which one), and there was some knowledgeable baseball type that responded to the point you are making. He pointed out that Joe Walsh, who is the proud owner of the lowest ERA in MLB history, was a spitballer. There was no "rule" against spitballs at the turn of the century, yet nobody considers Walsh to be a "great."

"Legal" does not mean ethical, moral, laudable, or worthy of recognition. If the material in this book turns out to be true, then Bonds should be treated like Walsh: forgotten as a cheat. In no event should he be in the Hall of Fame. What a disservice to the memory of the real greats, like Kirby Puckett, if Bonds is permitted to enter those hallowed halls.

I should also say that this couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Enjoy this publicity, Barry--you deserve it.

Joe Walsh played with the James Gang and the Eagles. The player you're thinking of is Ed Walsh.

Also, your point about Ed Walsh makes absolutely no sense since Ed Walsh is in the hall of fame. People dont know about Walsh because he pitched in the early 1900s and didnt have the ridiculous win totals common from that time or a great nickname. Look at the top 20 and I doubt most people have even heard of half of these people. http://baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERA_career.shtml (I only had heard of 9 of these guys)

If the Hall of Fame is going to keep out Barry Bonds then they better remove about 100 other people included the spitballers, catchers who scuffed balls on their shinguards, anyone who ever loaded up a ball, those with corked bats or who stole signs, and everyone who ever took greenies.

I also see no comparison to Rose and Jackson who were found to have broken strictly monitored rules and even throw a World Series. Bonds is no saint but if he wasnt such a jerk he wouldnt be getting anywhere near this amount of negative reaction.

[Trace21230]

Wait a second. When the spitter was legal, using it was NOT cheating. It was part of the game. When Gaylord Perry used it, it *was* cheating. But not way-back-then.

Let's imagine that 10 years from now they decide to make resin bags illegal. Does that mean Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson and Jim Palmer suddenly become cheaters. No, it does not. Let's imagine they make pine tar and batting gloves illegal. Does that make the hitters who use them now cheaters? Just recently, they've made using speed illegal, but for decades players routinely used speed, especially late in the season. Does that mean that you'll consider all of them cheaters? Tom Glavine made his entire career throwing pitches that, according to the letter of the rule book, were 4"-6" outside. But the umps gave him strikes. Then they changed how they call the strike zone, and now he's hosed. So, do we discount Glavine's wins because he was a cheater?

I do not wish to justify either steriods-in-general or Bonds in particular. My point is that the shame of steroids belongs to the whole game. Both the owners and the players. Both groups knew all about it (or should have known) and they did absolutely nothing until the HR numbers got crazy.

It's easier to find a scapegoat, especially when he's a jerk. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Legal-and-enforced vs illegal-and/or-unenforced makes a huge difference.

So, is it your opinion that those who didn't throw spitballs and those that didn't use steroids are just S.O.L. because they didn't use all the "legal" means available to them? The way you're framing the argument, it's almost as if players MUST do everything that isn't specifically forbidden by a written policy or else they will simply finish behind the other players that do everything they *can*, regardless of whether they *should*.

Whether you realize it or not, you are doing exactly what you claimed to be avoiding: justifying steroid use.

And while the shame of steroids might belong to the whole game, it does not belong to every player that ever played the game. We will never fully know the complete list of players that were roid fiends. But when someone like Bonds, who has been lauded as possibly the greatest hittest ever to play, is proven to have been using PEDs, then he's the one responsible for it. He's the one that should pay the price. I refuse to believe that every athlete during Bonds era was on steroids. Cal wasn't.

If you're making a general indictment of MLB, I'm not sure we disagree. MLB basically looked the other way because they wanted more home runs and more ticket sales. The players' union didn't help, either.