755

[EddieO's21]

Some of you are missing my point (and I think beaner's as well). Bonds did steroids. OK. But how do we know who else did? You say it'll be great to celebrate Griffey, but what if he took them? What if A-Rod did? You can't just pick and choose the guys you cheer and the ones you hate. The suspicion is gonna be there for every player of this era.

Hate it or love it, Late 80's to Early 2000's is going to be known as the steroid era. Bonds played in that era, and was by far BY FAR the best player in that era. So much better than anyone else, that this guy leads the universe in walks. I mean, someone actually considered it would be a good idea to walk this guy WITH THE BASES LOADED!!!

He did what he did. So did thousands of other hitters and pitchers. How many home runs did steroids help Bonds hit? Who knows. Nobody will ever know. I say less than people want to believe. I mean, as bean mentioned, the guy lost like 900 at bats because people refuse to pitch to him. How many would he have hit if people weren't absolutely TERRIFIED to pitch to him? Let alone talking about him having perhaps the greatest batting eye of any player in the history of baseball.

My point is, if you want to pull the hood over your eyes, and just mumble to yourself, and pretend like this never happened, then go ahead. Keep pretending it's 1984 and Henry Aaron is first on the all-time home run list. Me, I'm gonna celebrate one of the absolute greatest players in the history of baseball. Sure, he is an a-hole, he is pompous, and he doesn't seem to care for a lot of people, but he is a husband, a father, and actually pretty funny if you listen to him talk.

So do what you will. I'm gonna tell my kids that Bonds played in an era when a ton of players took some PED's, and he was one of them. Then I'll tell them that he was the greatest baseball player I've ever seen, and that he is the All-Time leader in Home Runs. (That is, unless A-Rod has passed him:D )

I don't...I despise everyone who did it...no matter how much I liked them previously

[geschinger]

Totally agree. If Bonds was a nice and fun loving guy, how fans view him would be a lot different. His personality is at least as big of a factor as the steroids are imo.

What do you base this assumption on? We've seen the reaction to McGwire and Palmeiro - both guys who were generally well liked by media and fans alike and both have had their reputations destroyed. If personality is as big of a factor then why was Palmeiro treated the way he was? Why did McGwire get less than 25% of the vote for the HOF? Maybe the response to Bonds wouldn't be as virtriolic if he was a nice person but he'd still be generating a lot of negativity based on the cheating alone.

[Mark Carver]

I'm not sure what you're asking me or what this has to do with the conversation.

Well, fans don't like him and maybe his fellow players don't either?

[davearm]

* Barry Bonds used (uses?) illegal performance enhancing drugs, and did (has done?) so for a lengthy period of time. It was 100% his decicion to do so, and it was a conscious and fully informed choice on his part.

* Barry Bonds has denied and/or avoided his guilt, despite the overwhelming evidence against him. This too is his conscious and fully informed choice.

* Barry Bonds has throughout his career comported himself around fans, teammates, and media members with an angry, dismissive, stand-offish, contempt-filled, and downright antisocial attitude. The stories of Bonds being a complete and utter selfcentered jerk in any and every situation that a famous athlete commonly finds himself in are legion. Again, this is his choice, and it's one he makes of his own free will.

That's quite a few things in life that Bonds has chosen for himself.

So I have absolutely zero sympathy for Bonds having to suffer whatever repercussions those conscious choices have brought, or will bring upon him.

If people hate him, won't recognize his accomplishments, or just plain don't care and wish he'd go away, then he's got nobody but himself to blame for it.

[Sports Guy]

Not sure if this has been mentioned in the thread(i haven't read any of it) but Clay Hensley, the guy who gave up the homer, was suspended in the minors for steroid abuse...How about that irony?

[mweb]

Well, fans don't like him and maybe his fellow players don't either?

Most of them don't like him, I'm still not sure what that has to do with this though.

[mweb]

What do you base this assumption on? We've seen the reaction to McGwire and Palmeiro - both guys who were generally well liked by media and fans alike and both have had their reputations destroyed. If personality is as big of a factor then why was Palmeiro treated the way he was? Why did McGwire get less than 25% of the vote for the HOF? Maybe the response to Bonds wouldn't be as virtriolic if he was a nice person but he'd still be generating a lot of negativity based on the cheating alone.

There's no question Bonds would still get a lot of negative press and reaction from fans. I just feel there would be less of that if he was a good guy. I don't think it would be focused on nearly as much. The media hates him, and that leads to more negative press, which leads to swaying fans opinions of him.

I'd bet a lot more people hate Bonds than McGwire and Raffy.

Concering your HOF point, I don't think that has much to do with my point, but someone made a point, I think it was Beaner, that Bonds was already a no doubt about it HOF'er before using steroids and a great all around player, McGwire and Sosa relied on hr's to build their HOF resume. And neither come close to a clean Bonds even with the steroid use. And we obviously don't know how the vote will go with Bonds.

[Sports Guy]

There's no question Bonds would still get a lot of negative press and reaction from fans. I just feel there would be less of that if he was a good guy. I don't think it would be focused on nearly as much. The media hates him, and that leads them to more negative press, which leads to swaying fans opinions of him.

I'd bet a lot more people hate Bonds than McGwire and Raffy.

There is no doubt about this...If Bonds had a Ripken-esque personality, a lot of this would be more overlooked.

[Moose Milligan]

There is no doubt about this...If Bonds had a Ripken-esque personality, a lot of this would be more overlooked.

This is true. I'm over the whole steroids thing. The fact that he did them is offset by the fact that everyone else was doing them, too.

Doesn't make it right, don't get me wrong...but it's not like the playing level wasn't too terribly swayed.

I just hate to see giant douchebags hold major records like that. By and large, most of the people that hold major records in sports are good ambassadors for their sports, at least most of those who have played in the past 20, 25 years.

Marino, Gretzky, Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Emmit Smith, Jerry Rice, etc...all class acts, all give back to their sports, all good ambassadors to their sports.

Bonds is a classless idiot. I hope the tax thing comes around to bite him in the ass.

[RShack]

There is no doubt about this...If Bonds had a Ripken-esque personality, a lot of this would be more overlooked.

Well, there is that.

But if it was a case of somebody like Ripken, there'd also be a lot more disillusionment and tears. Hell, Palmiero broke my heart, and I was never especially in love with the guy. I liked him, but he wasn't a hero to a million kids.

The Bonds-hating is one portion of karmic justice and and another portion of questionable fairness (with him getting dumped on for the sins of both himself and a large subset of an entire generation of ballplayers).

Maybe everybody needs a bad guy to pin it all on. Without a bad guy, how do people focus their disgust? So, Barry has arranged to be the bad guy. I'd much rather have a high-visibility bad guy than have a Ripken-esque story tarnished.

There's something almost Shakespearean about the whole thing.

[24fps]

* Barry Bonds used (uses?) illegal performance enhancing drugs, and did (has done?) so for a lengthy period of time. It was 100% his decicion to do so, and it was a conscious and fully informed choice on his part.

* Barry Bonds has denied and/or avoided his guilt, despite the overwhelming evidence against him. This too is his conscious and fully informed choice.

* Barry Bonds has throughout his career comported himself around fans, teammates, and media members with an angry, dismissive, stand-offish, contempt-filled, and downright antisocial attitude. The stories of Bonds being a complete and utter selfcentered jerk in any and every situation that a famous athlete commonly finds himself in are legion. Again, this is his choice, and it's one he makes of his own free will.

That's quite a few things in life that Bonds has chosen for himself.

So I have absolutely zero sympathy for Bonds having to suffer whatever repercussions those conscious choices have brought, or will bring upon him.

If people hate him, won't recognize his accomplishments, or just plain don't care and wish he'd go away, then he's got nobody but himself to blame for it.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about how I might feel when the inevitable occurred - that being Bonds breaking Aarons record.

I doubt that I could put my feelings more succinctly than you have in your post.

[Hallas]

Bonds is a first-class jerkoff, yes, but no one's really given me a good answer as to why why everyone absolves Aaron and other players of the 60s and 70s of amphetamine use but lambasts Bonds for steroid use.

Any takers?

I have a long, long diatribe about how the "battle" against performance-enhancing drugs is silly, ill-conceived, and (obviously) ineffective, but that's for another post. The bottom line, however, is that if you want to hate Bonds because he's a jerk, that's your right. But hating because he took steroids shows kind of a double standard against him, considering the number of current ballplayers in steroids scandals, and the history of documented PE drug abuse and other cheating scandals throughout the history of baseball. (Hello Gaylord Perry.)

[DrungoHazewood]

Bonds is a first-class jerkoff, yes, but no one's really given me a good answer as to why why everyone absolves Aaron and other players of the 60s and 70s of amphetamine use but lambasts Bonds for steroid use.

Any takers?

I have a long, long diatribe about how the "battle" against performance-enhancing drugs is silly, ill-conceived, and (obviously) ineffective, but that's for another post. The bottom line, however, is that if you want to hate Bonds because he's a jerk, that's your right. But hating because he took steroids shows kind of a double standard against him, considering the number of current ballplayers in steroids scandals, and the history of documented PE drug abuse and other cheating scandals throughout the history of baseball. (Hello Gaylord Perry.)

The standard answer is something along the lines of "Greenies and steroids aren't in the same ballpark. Everybody knows a handful of greenies is just like drinking a couple cups of coffee, but steroids immediately turn you into an unholy combination of Babe Ruth and the Incredible Hulk. Greenies made it easier to stay up late, just like Jolt Cola, but 'roids were solely responsible for turning baseball from a strategy-packed game of speedsters into beer league softball." Not that I believe 5% of that, but that's generally the tone and content of the responses to this question I've seen before.

[sangell2007]

I've learned that there is no arguing this point. I really can't even begin to imagine how people can't see Bonds as the champ, but whatever. This is the kind of argument that nobody ever changes their mind on.

And there it is, really. I count myself in the beaner and YardBirds camp. I'm a little torn about it, but if it's going to happen, I want to see it. And if I happened to be in the park when it happened, I definitely would cheer.

If I may sidetrack this a little, the man belongs in the Hall of Fame - I don't think many posters here would argue that. I wonder if, sometime in the not-too-distant future, someone will admit to steroid use, or at least campaign for the election of suspected users, during their induction speech.

Whether that happens or not, eventually we will have a known user in the Hall. And when that happens, it would be impossible for me to leave out any of the suspected users.

[DrungoHazewood]

Whether that happens or not, eventually we will have a known user in the Hall. And when that happens, it would be impossible for me to leave out any of the suspected users.

But you're not a voter, and the voters seem to have a magical knowledge of who used and who didn't. It'll be a long time before this really plays out, but for now the standard seems to be big guys who hit homers are convicted, everyone else gets a pass. This despite the test results which have caught more 180-lb middle infielders and mediocre relievers than anything else.

It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

It's either hypocrisy, or the natural human need to simplify and pigeonhole.