New Book details Barry Bond's Steriod Use

[Trace21230]

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.

Joe Walsh is also a musician, but yeah you are right it was Ed Walsh the guy was referring to. The point is a good point, because even though Walsh (I'll just use last names from now on) is in the HOF, practically nobody knows who he is.

Keeping Bonds out is a lot different than actually removing players that have already been inducted.

[davearm]

Sadly, these latest revelations, while somewhat startling in their detail and for the picture they paint of Bonds being a prodigious user, won't change anything.

Baseball can't take any punitive action against him, since he's never failed one of their tests.

The Giants aren't going to dump him.

Congress isn't going to bother him.

He's already shed the prosecutors in the BALCO case.

The media could hardly hound him any more than they already have.

The best the Anti-Barry crowd can hope for is that his body fails him and/or his skills erode, and he suffers a Sosaesque fall from grace.

I also agree with the previous posters that have pointed out that prior to 2003, baseball had no performance-drug regulations whatsoever, and so they couldn't have touched Bonds even if, prior to '03, he had to stuck a syringe in his butt right in the batter's box in front of 50,000 fans. Just because there are doping rules in place now, doesn't allow baseball to punish anyone retroactively for use pre-2003.

[Max Power]

Joe Walsh is also a musician, but yeah you are right it was Ed Walsh the guy was referring to. The point is a good point, because even though Walsh (I'll just use last names from now on) is in the HOF, practically nobody knows who he is.

Keeping Bonds out is a lot different than actually removing players that have already been inducted.

The point is not a good point. Nobody knows Walsh because he pitched from 1904-1917. Besides his ERA, he did nothing else memorable as a pitcher with a mediocre win total and he didnt have a cool nickname like "Old Hoss" or "Smokey Joe". Pitchers from that timeframe are rightfully judged by more than ERA because it was a deadball time with many things going against the hitters. Lastly, if your point was actually valid the majority of the top 20 ERA pitchers of all time would be considered great yet there are maybe 4 "great" pitchers on that list.

[RShack]

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.

I don't believe that's the stand I'm taking. All I'm saying is that I think it's silly to expect players to not use all the means at their disposal. That's what competition does. Competition brings out the best *and* the worst of people, whether it's in sports or business or politics or you-name-it. While some will have principles they stick to, many will use every edge they can get and won't care about right-or-wrong, just so they can get away with it. Their motto is, "whatever works". That's especially true if the "powers that be" look the other way and ignore it. It's not smart to just assume that people will abide by some code that is not made explicit and that is not taken seriously. Given that, I think the sport-as-a-whole just asked for it.

[Trace21230]

The point is not a good point. Nobody knows Walsh because he pitched from 1904-1917. Besides his ERA, he did nothing else memorable as a pitcher with a mediocre win total and he didnt have a cool nickname like "Old Hoss" or "Smokey Joe". Pitchers from that timeframe are rightfully judged by more than ERA because it was a deadball time with many things going against the hitters. Lastly, if your point was actually valid the majority of the top 20 ERA pitchers of all time would be considered great yet there are maybe 4 "great" pitchers on that list.

Was there a law prohibiting a pitcher from putting spit on a baseball? There was a law prohibiting *anyone* from using steroids. If I recall correctly, Stanozolol and the other substances Bonds is accused of using were illegal as controlled substances.

I think the point I relayed is valid, but I cannot characterize it as "my" point. As my first post states, I heard it on the radio from some baseball columnist whose name I cannot recall.

I don't think your defense of Bonds is any more valid than the points I've raised.

[twoBshorty]

One of the things that has frustrated me most about this whole situation is the "It wasn't banned in baseball when he was doing it, so he's not a cheater" argument. This has been put forth by commentators and fans all over the place.

I'll accept that it wasn't banned in baseball, although it should have been far earlier.

But anabolic steroids are, according to the FDA, a Schedule III controlled substance. It is a violation of federal law to use them without a prescription. This has been the case since before Bonds picked up his first syringe.

Maybe Bonds wasn't breaking the law of baseball, but he was breaking the law of the United States. I don't care if it was legal in baseball. If it is illegal under federal law, IT IS ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE. It doesn't matter if it's inside baseball. Baseball is under the scope of the law of the United States. That should be accepted. Why someone has to be told this separately under sports rules to make it clear to them is mind-boggling to me and is NOT an excuse and NOT a justification to avoid being labelled a cheater. You don't need a section of the rule book that tells you that it is prohibited for a pitcher to shoot a batter; everyone already knows this and it would be redundant. The same applies to steroids. You don't leave the laws behind when you step on the field.

What Bonds did was ILLEGAL AND WRONG. To me, those are the two criteria of cheating.

/climbing down off high horse:002_ssmile:

[bgtimber75]

Thanks you. It could not have been written better. He's using a controlled substance aquired by illegal means. Who cares what baseball says. Federal goverment trumps MLB.

He deserves to make the HOF. I don't think they can keep him out. As long as he doesn't break Aaron's record and to a lesser extent Ruth's he'll just be an afterthought in 10 years. That's my hope. I hope he just goes away quietly and his steroid era goes away with him.

[66-70-83-??]

Thanks you. It could not have been written better. He's using a controlled substance aquired by illegal means. Who cares what baseball says. Federal goverment trumps MLB.

He deserves to make the HOF. I don't think they can keep him out. As long as he doesn't break Aaron's record and to a lesser extent Ruth's he'll just be an afterthought in 10 years. That's my hope. I hope he just goes away quietly and his steroid era goes away with him.

I agree. I don't understand the logic behind the "baseball didn't ban it" argument, either......it is like me assuming that I can rob banks or kill people all day long because my company handbook doesn't say it is against company policy. :002_sbiggrin:

They can most certainly keep him out. After reading that excerpt from SI, considering the amount of drugs he took- it might be time to draw the line.

If it is all true- he does NOT belong in the HOF.

[davearm]

One of the things that has frustrated me most about this whole situation is the "It wasn't banned in baseball when he was doing it, so he's not a cheater" argument. This has been put forth by commentators and fans all over the place.

I'll accept that it wasn't banned in baseball, although it should have been far earlier.

But anabolic steroids are, according to the FDA, a Schedule III controlled substance. It is a violation of federal law to use them without a prescription. This has been the case since before Bonds picked up his first syringe.

Maybe Bonds wasn't breaking the law of baseball, but he was breaking the law of the United States. I don't care if it was legal in baseball. If it is illegal under federal law, IT IS ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE. It doesn't matter if it's inside baseball. Baseball is under the scope of the law of the United States. That should be accepted. Why someone has to be told this separately under sports rules to make it clear to them is mind-boggling to me and is NOT an excuse and NOT a justification to avoid being labelled a cheater. You don't need a section of the rule book that tells you that it is prohibited for a pitcher to shoot a batter; everyone already knows this and it would be redundant. The same applies to steroids. You don't leave the laws behind when you step on the field.

What Bonds did was ILLEGAL AND WRONG. To me, those are the two criteria of cheating.

/climbing down off high horse:002_ssmile:

I gotta disagree 100% with this.

What's illegal by US law and what's prohibited by baseball's rules and/or CBA are two completely separate issues altogether.

To illustrate, I'll ask you this: if steroids were not illegal anywhere outside of the US, would it be OK with you for the Blue Jays to use up in Toronto? Or for foreign players (Latinos, Japanese, etc.) to go back home during the offseason and use? Or how about if the Padres' guys scooted down to Tijuana to juice up?

This shows how federal law cannot, and should not, be interchangeable with the rules of baseball.

You can say that what Bonds did was ILLEGAL AND WRONG.

The first is undeniable, according to our federal criminal code.

The second is a value judgement.

However one thing you cannot say is that what Bonds did broke the rules of MLB. No rule prohibiting the use of performance enhancing drugs existed prior to 2003, and since the inception of the drug policy, Bonds has never tested positive.

Bottom line, what is and isn't prohibited by the rules of MLB is all that's relevant in this discussion.

[Trace21230]

Bottom line, what is and isn't prohibited by the rules of MLB is all that's relevant in this discussion.

Hmm, OK. By your logic, then, a player could be convicted of raping and killing thirty women, but if there wasn't an MLB policy against rape and murder, the player's conduct should have no bearing on whether the player makes the HOF.

All-righty, then.

[twoBshorty]

I gotta disagree 100% with this.

What's illegal by US law and what's prohibited by baseball's rules and/or CBA are two completely separate issues altogether.

And here I have to disagree. You cannot separate US law and MLB rules. MLB rules are subjugated to US law. That is the definition of state sovereignty and it is absolute. Baseball can require its members to submit to laws that are in ADDITION to federal law, but they can't allow them to ignore those laws. That is fundamental to government.

To illustrate, I'll ask you this: if steroids were not illegal anywhere outside of the US, would it be OK with you for the Blue Jays to use up in Toronto? Or for foreign players (Latinos, Japanese, etc.) to go back home during the offseason and use? Or how about if the Padres' guys scooted down to Tijuana to juice up?

No, it wouldn't be, because I believe illicit steroid use is morally wrong. The hypothetical Toronto question is, I believe, irrelevant, because steroids are also illegal in Canada. Let's not go off into fanciful what-ifs that aren't based in reality; they don't make a point. As far as people who use out of the country, there is little that can be done about that until other countries make it illegal also. But that doesn't mean we can't police it within our own borders and it still doesn't make it right. The fact that these people have to skulk around in the dark to do it should tell them that already.

This shows how federal law cannot, and should not, be interchangeable with the rules of baseball.

It isn't. It's absolutely superior to the rules of baseball. There really can't be any equivocating about this. If something is illegal under federal law, it cannot be done in baseball. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you don't respect that principle, you're dealing with anarchy. In order for society to function, people must respect its laws. As I said earlier, baseball can add its own rules, but it can't substitute or delete them.

You can say that what Bonds did was ILLEGAL AND WRONG.

The first is undeniable, according to our federal criminal code.

The second is a value judgement.

True. And we could go around in circles about moral relativism all night, but suffice it to say that I am not a moral relativist and I believe that breaking the law is immoral unless the law is unjust. I challenge anyone to prove that the law controlling anabolic steroid use is unjust.

However one thing you cannot say is that what Bonds did broke the rules of MLB. No rule prohibiting the use of performance enhancing drugs existed prior to 2003, and since the inception of the drug policy, Bonds has never tested positive.

See, my entire post dealt with why I disagree with this argument. Refuting my post by stating that argument seems a little weird to me. Bonds didn't break the rules of MLB. I never disputed that. I disputed the statement that it wasn't cheating because he didn't break those rules. He broke US law. What he did was illegal, and therefore cheating, because by breaking that law which other people respected (as they should), he gave himself an unfair competitive advantage.

Bottom line, what is and isn't prohibited by the rules of MLB is all that's relevant in this discussion.

I disagree. It's very relevant. If the rules of MLB are stupid and incomplete, it is entirely relevant to discuss that. You really believe that because he didn't break any baseball rules, it wasn't wrong and that he isn't a cheater? There's nothing in the rule book about stabbing the first baseman to avoid a pickoff throw. But that's still wrong, illegal, and definitely cheating.

You can't just ignore the laws whenever it pleases you. They're there to be followed at all times. MLB rules are IN ADDITION to those rules, not INSTEAD OF them. And it's incredibly relevant.

[davearm]

Hmm, OK. By your logic, then, a player could be convicted of raping and killing thirty women, but if there wasn't an MLB policy against rape and murder, the player's conduct should have no bearing on whether the player makes the HOF.

All-righty, then.

Last I checked, OJ is in the HOF.

[Trace21230]

Last I checked, OJ is in the HOF.

Yes, but he wouldn't have been in the HOF if he would have killed her before the vote happened. And he shouldn't have been.

Conduct and character matters, which is why Bonds should never be in the Hall.

[davearm]

Let's be clear here. The terms "illegal", "wrong/immoral", and "cheating" are *not* interchangeable.

"Illegal" is defined by the criminal code.

"Wrong/immoral" is defined by one's own belief system.

And "cheating" is defined by, and only by, the rules of the game.

Is steroid use illegal? Absolutely it is, in this country anyway.

Is steroid use wrong/immoral? Depends on who you ask, although most agree that it is.

Is steroid use (in baseball) cheating? It is now. It wasn't three years ago.

So I have no problem with someone calling Bonds a criminal and morally bankrupt (assuming all of this stuff is true). I do, however, have a problem with the term "cheater". He would have had to break a rule of MLB for that term to apply.

[RShack]

Conduct and character matters, which is why Bonds should never be in the Hall.

So, what do you think should happen to the zillions of MLB players (and NFL players, and so on) who routinely took greenies (speed) to enhance their performance? Until quite recently, the use of speed was not prohibited by the rules. It's legal use required a Dr's prescription. While some players may have had such prescriptions, most did not. Instead, greenies were simply widely available, and often provided by the team trainers. How is this any different in terms of the law, the rules, and/or your view of morality? In principle, it seems like pretty much the same thing to me.

In one of his memorable guest appearances on the Letterman show, former Baltimore Colt and NFL HOFer Artie Donovan said that, during his playing days, they never heard anything at all about "performance enhancing drugs"... but they all took a handful of 'greenies' before and during the game. I thought Letterman was gonna wet his pants ;-)