http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/07/bonds.record/index.html?cnn=yes

I have to say, I'm always skeptical of athletes and the worship they receive. I like sports, just not the money and energy wasting industry it's become. I think I've complained about that before. You try to enjoy a ballgame, but that's after a fortune paid for tickets and parking. If you want food, it's a $5 hot dog. And then we don't enjoy the game, we worship people for...for what? If this country could take even a small portion of the energy wasted on sports and dump it into, say, education, political reform, or heck even infrastructure repair, we'd see some pretty amazing changes.

Bonds is still under scrutiny for taking steroids. Should a record like this mean anything? Is he really a super athlete, a skilled human being whose devotion to physical excellence earned him a reward, or someone who achieved what many others could have through drug use? Shouldn't a line be drawn somewhere?

Is he really a super athlete, a skilled human being whose devotion to physical excellence earned him a reward, or someone who achieved what many others could have through drug use? Shouldn't a line be drawn somewhere?

The conservative estimates are that 40% of the Major Leagues were using performance enhancing drugs. The more outrageous estimates place that number closer to 75%. So for sake of this argument, lets say that number is somewhere in between those figures. No one else during the steroid era has even come close to approaching Bonds' numbers. So I think that the bolded statement from above is a huge falicy. It's not my place to judge whether Bonds did or didn't use steroids. I think it's fairly apparent to most people here that he did 'something,' but it appears many others did as well. None of the other baseball players that did 'something' are even close to Bonds numbers. So to answer that question, no I don't think that he achieved something that many others could have through drug use because none of the other users have come close.

Also, Bonds has over 2535 walks (the figure I saw at some point last week). That's five YEARS worth of at bats. Second place, which is Ricky Henderson, has about 400 fewer walks over three more seasons. Third place is Babe Ruth with sbout 500 fewer walks over the same number of seasons as Bonds thusfar. Barry didn't simply start getting tons of walks in 2000 (which is the first year people suspect he took any performance enhancers). Prior to that he'd averaged 116.3 walks per year, and if you factor that over the duration of his career thus far, he'd have 2558 walks after this year (which is about where he will be). My point to this statistic? He had a good eye before any of this. He was a feared hitter before all this. He was a multiple time MVP and an eight time gold glove hitter before all this.

Steroids aren't going to help a player make contact more often, and he hit .370 in 2002 which is simply amazing at 38 years old.

Bonds isn't a nice guy, which is why he takes so much heat. He's by far not the only player to be suspected of steroids, though he's never tested positive. We focus so much attention on him and not on the people that have actually tested positive. How many people know that the pitcher he hit a home run off of in San Diego Saturday night was suspended previously for steroid use? Isn't that a bit of irony there?

But he still doesn't surpass Hank Aaron in my book.

And for many years, Hank Aaron didn't surpass Babe Ruth in a huge portion of this country's eyes.

If the Mitchell investigation finds nothing (and it's obviously a glorified witch hunt aiming almost solely at Bonds), will people change their stance? I personally place more blame at the feet of Bud Selig and Major League Baseball than I do at the feet of the players. Steroids weren't policed in MLB until late 2002. At that point it had been tested for in the NFL for about 20 years. Baseball had knowledge in the 80s that steroids were being used. Baseball DEFINATELY knew that McGwire was at least using a steroid-like product at a minimum in 1998, and they still did nothing for at least four more years.

If I were a player, and I knew I could extend my career and my marketability (to the tune of many MILLIONS of dollars) by taking something that wasn't even technically against the rules, I can't say I wouldn't do it. How many people on this board can say with a straight face that you wouldn't cycle steroids on and off for a couple of years to net yourself one million dollars? 5 million? 50! million?

San Francisco was in Saint Louis for a series a couple of weeks ago. I had seats right off the 3rd base line like 2 rows back. We spent the entire game yelling at Bonds, and to our delight he was quite reactive.

"Hey Barry, where's your fucking steroids? You suck!"

/Barry gives 2 thumbs up

It was great. :devil

Did you guys heckle Mark McGwire about steroids when he was playing? See that's the hypocracy I'm talking about.

I think it's more a question of what we worship, rather than what we'd do. My understanding is that the historic idea of things like sports/Olympics/etc are based off an appreciation of what the human body is capable of, and admiring those who are able to condition themselves into excellence.

Athletes are treated as gods, up there with any other celebrity. Which makes me wonder about the standards we hold them to. If Bonds' record stands, and say he is firmly connected with the steroid scandal, then it should call into question any home run he ever hit. OR - it stands as an 'okay' sign for others, meaning that to some extent every record is based on how far we can push ourselves chemically. It's a standard without a clear line.

This isn't a question of whether he worked hard, he certainly has. It's a question of what we consider acceptable in our worship, and what it is that we're admiring.

It's not fair to pin this all on Bonds, it just happened to be his article that I read this morning. We're seeing the same garbage in every sport, Tour de France was probably the other most recent. Also, Bonds has over 2535 walks (the figure I saw at some point last week). Unrelated, but another pet peeve of baseball. You go to watch someone play, and instead the other team keeps them from doing what they're good at. I sat through a Diamondbacks game where Gonzalez was never allowed a good hit. Sure it's good strategy, but boring to watch.

I am with Taleren on this. The steriods didn't make him better swinger. Bonds is big but nothing special size wise, it takes a lot more to be able to put it all together. So whats a player to gain by taking steriods in baseball?

Strength? Hit farther? Possibly...its more technique than size imo.
Recovery? they play a lot of games but how exhausting is the game?
Intensity? I don't see players getting hyped up like a football player or fighter..

I don't factor roids into Bonds success at all. I simply dislike him because hes an ass more than anything else. I could care less about his record. When he was in Millerpark the entire 40K+ crowd would boo him every time at bat, but take pictures of him every swing.

I sat through a Diamondbacks game where Gonzalez was never allowed a good hit. Sure it's good strategy, but boring to watch.

Another player who's number shot WAY up during the steroid era and dropped off the face of the earth when testing was implemented. BUT BUT he's a nice guy, and he's on my team@!

I was in 7th grade when McGwire was doing his thing. I never had the opportunity to heckle him in person, but I will say that there is not much love for him in Saint Louis.

When he was going against Sosa the issue of steroids was not at the forefront of baseball. After he cried in front of Congress, I think he lost most of his redbird support.

When he was going against Sosa the issue of steroids was not at the forefront of baseball.

Of course it wasn't at the forefront of baseball then. MLB needed the home run chase to bring fans back after the 94 strike.

Next thing you know, the fans will be blamed for the reason why athletes take steroids...

I wouldn't go that far, but I would go so far as to say the money that the fan's possess is a huge reason for it.

Everyone forgets that the old guys had their vices too, and some of them were huge assholes. The difference is that they weren't under the 24/7 scrutiny that is so common today. It's pretty hard for one guy to turn the tide against a faceless mass of bloggers and nobody journalists that are all trying to out-sensationalize and out-scandalize the next.

Like Ibudin pointed out, steroids don't make you hit home runs. You're not bench pressing the ball. Bonds' success is so much more due to technique and reflex than physical strength.

i would say its been part of the US athletic culture for a long ass time (nfl, nhl etc not having any testing worth mentioning) institute testing and suspensions that matter (3 games or whatever that hockey player got a few years back was hilarious) and you will see it dropping down again imo.

Sorry Taleran, he's a great player, perhaps the one of greatest, but I believe he cheated...and if you cheat, you don't win. This is my opinion, not what should be official. He has not been proven to have taken steriods so no "asterick" should be put in the books by baseball. Innocent until proven guilty right?

I don't care if every single player in the league was on steriods, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. IMO, he broke the record while he was was on performance enhancing drugs...the mark still belongs to Hank in my book.

I agree.

I think that hitting a baseball is one of the, if not the most difficult tasks in professional sports today. I'm willing to admit that mechanics and skill is much more of a factor than raw power in hitting long balls.

That said, why the hell would he take roids if they had no effect? How many warning track balls become homeruns due to the extra couple feet the roids afforded him?

I don't care if every single player in the league was on steriods, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. .

Why wouldn't it make a differance if he therefore gained no competitive advantage out of it? Not saying it's this way; I am just responding to your hypothetical. If every player were using, it would then become no differant than using a better bat or ball than a previous era.

Yeah, that's kinda ridiculous. Every player in the league is currently benefiting massively from better supplements and general sports medicine than Hank Aaron had access to decades ago

Should no record ever be broken again, because it isn't fair that we improve ourselves?

While were at it, lets throw out all of Babe Ruth's records because a large portion of the players (any black player in the Negro leagues) weren't permitted to compete on Babe's level.

While were at it, lets throw out all of Babe Ruth's records because a large portion of the players (any black player in the Negro leagues) weren't permitted to compete on Babe's level.Which, to a certain extent, makes the statistics even more meaningless.

Just to clarify, back to the original post - I would include any athlete cheating, not simply Bonds. Like I said, it was just his article that came up today.

But he still doesn't surpass Hank Aaron in my book.

Has Aaron ever proven that he NEVER used any performance enhancing substance?

I applaud Bonds for his achievement. All the other stuff is BS, that really deserves no discussion at this point.

Now, let's dump the piece of shit commissioner, and put in someone who truly loves the game like Bob Costa. Then, maybe we will see some stuff getting cleaned up.

Sorry if any of this repeats other comments, have not read them all yet.

Would alcohol be considered a "Performance Enhancing Substance" if it allowed a player to swing, or run (albeit a bit crookedly) without pain?
In that case, shouldn't a pickled Babe Ruth's records should be thrown out on the basis that he used a "Performance Enhancing Substance"?

And, IMO, the only real records in baseball are the Gehrig-Ripken records for showing up to do what they were being paid to do. Yes, there is a lot of speculation about Ripken's numbers being padded by playing just enough in some games to qualify, but it still shows a much stronger character trait in terms of role modelling for our youth than how many hits or home runs you get.

But do we know Ripken didn't do any greenies to keep himself better prepared for those late season games? See this can go on forever.

Would alcohol be considered a "Performance Enhancing Substance" if it allowed a player to swing, or run (albeit a bit crookedly) without pain?
In that case, shouldn't a pickled Babe Ruth's records should be thrown out on the basis that he used a "Performance Enhancing Substance"?

He didn't drink when he was on the field.

Yeah, that's kinda ridiculous. Every player in the league is currently benefiting massively from better supplements and general sports medicine than Hank Aaron had access to decades ago

Should no record ever be broken again, because it isn't fair that we improve ourselves?

While were at it, lets throw out all of Babe Ruth's records because a large portion of the players (any black player in the Negro leagues) weren't permitted to compete on Babe's level.

There is a huge difference here. There is whats allowed by the rules of the game and what isn't. They are allowed to take the supplements and to watch the videos of the pitchers they are competing against and are using a harder bat and are using a tighter spun cuban ball now so yes, there will be more home runs. But the steroid use is against the rules and you shouldn't be allowed to win if you are cheating. If, as you say, the steroid use had no impact why did he take them in the first place? Why is it against the rules? Because it obviously does have an impact.

They should just legalize it and be done with it; I don't think anyone knows how long 'roids or other substances have been taken by atheletes.

But so Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron could hit well in their day; Bonds is no doubt swinging against pitchers who are on 'roids too. Does that make it even? Less/more meaningful? If the 'roids were that effective I think we'd see tons of guys making these accomplishments not just a few standouts. It's so easy to zero-in on the guy at the front than it is on the guys in the back pumping the shit in their veins hoping some day to make it to the front. There is far more at play than raw power/beef/bulk when it comes to swinging a bat; especially at something that can come 90+mphs. Fuck steroids if you can't see the thing or get the right timing what good are they going to do for you? Yes, they may help you swing harder but you still need the other mechanics to get there.

I don't really care about baseball these days. I am someone who got turned off to it in the 90s. To be honest I'm starting to feel that way about all professional sports and turning my eyes more to college sports.

or someone who achieved what many others could have through drug use?

So I think that the bolded statement from above is a huge falicy. It's not my place to judge whether Bonds did or didn't use steroids. I think it's fairly apparent to most people here that he did 'something,' but it appears many others did as well. None of the other baseball players that did 'something' are even close to Bonds numbers. So to answer that question, no I don't think that he achieved something that many others could have through drug use because none of the other users have come close.

I understand that you were responding to Kanyli's post, but I believe that the initial argument missed the point completely. No one with any real knowledge of baseball argues that Bonds wasn't a talented player, one that was headed for the Hall of Fame within his first 4 or 5 seasons. The question isn't whether anyone could of acheived this through drug use, but could Bonds have acheived this without drug use. Looking at his numbers, he certainly did seem to get better with age, which isn't common for most athletes.

I'm not going to quote the dozens of silly posts about beer, vitamin supplements, and even amphetemines being "unfair" advantages. There is absolutely zero moral equivallency between those substances and steroids. Only speed could approach the health damage that steroids cause and none of them provide the quick, shortcut to long term bulk that steriods creates. The very fact that people are trying to rationalize the steroid epidemic shows that something happened that needs to be rationalized. If you are a baseball fan, shame on you. This attempt to bring every era of baseball through the mud pit that Bonds and others created only brings the entire institution into disrespect.

Personally, I hold baseball itself responsible to the epidemic of the '90s. The Bonds name in the record books is one of the prices it has to pay. I'm just hopeful someone in my lifetime takes the crown away from him.

He didn't drink when he was on the field.





There is a huge difference here. There is whats allowed by the rules of the game and what isn't. They are allowed to take the supplements and to watch the videos of the pitchers they are competing against and are using a harder bat and are using a tighter spun cuban ball now so yes, there will be more home runs. But the steroid use is against the rules and you shouldn't be allowed to win if you are cheating. If, as you say, the steroid use had no impact why did he take them in the first place? Why is it against the rules? Because it obviously does have an impact.

Where did I ever say it had no impact? There's a differance in saying it doesn't help him actually make contact with the ball and saying it had no impact. Did I ever imply it didn't help him heal faster for example, or hit the ball marginally further? No I didn't. And one thing you are glossing over is that during the time it's alleged that he took the steroids, they weren't tested for or regulated by MLB. Greenies weren't 'allowed' by MLB but they weren't tested for over the 40+ YEARS that they were prominant in the game. Numerous players, including such Hall of Famers as Mike Schmidt, have stated that they used greenies and couldn't have played as much of a season without those.

And my point isn't to run every era through the mud Filatil, but to point out that if one wanted too they could focus on something from every era to try and undermine any accomplishment that might occur then.

Yes I do think that keeping blacks out of baseball for the first 75 years did more harm to the game than steroids. I think that keeping them out of baseball for so long affected the competitive balance of baseball far more than steroids ever did. I think based upon that era and based upon steroids now, that Hank's record is the most pure amongst Bonds, Ruth, or him, but that's simply my opinion. I DO think that Bonds is the home run king though until it's proven that he knowingly cheated, and even then I can't say my opinion will change because we'll NEVER know the scope of steroids in baseball and all modern sports.

I'm a Steeler fan, so I'm not knocking them unfairly in my eyes. You don't see an outcry amongst fans to try and go back and take four Super Bowls from the 70s Steelers dynasty after it came out 25-30 years later that just about their entire offensive line was juiced. That admission came from Mike Webster (an NFL HoFer) shortly before his death, which happened to be attributed to said steroid usage.

So cheating is ok if they aren't gonna check if you are cheating, Taleren?

So cheating is ok if they aren't gonna check if you are cheating, Taleren?

How is it cheating when it isn't against the rules yet?

I am shamelessly taking this quote from another forum, but it states this as succinctly as I could:

There was NOTHING in baseball's collective bargaining agreement -- which are the rules that players must abide by -- prohibiting any sort of steroid use until 2002. That means Bonds could have used all the steroids in the world until 2002, and none of that would be cheating at baseball.

It would be breaking the law, but breaking the law is NOT cheating at baseball. The two have nothing to do with each other. Pete Rose didn't break the law by betting on baseball games. He did cheat though, because it's a rule in baseball that players and managers can't gamble on games. Ty Cobb broke the law when he stabbed a guy who suggested he didn't hate black people enough. He didn't cheat at baseball.

I'm kinda with the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/destruction_of_national_pastime) on this. Or would be if I gave two shits about baseball.

Can you summarize? It's blocked from here :(

How is it cheating when it isn't against the rules yet?

Except that steroid usage, and other illicit drug usage, was against the rules since at least 1991 when Fay Vincent sent a memo to all MLB clubs outlining the illicit substance policy. The quote you used may have been succint, but it was completely wrong. The collective bargaining agreement is a contract for employment (which is how the player's union stonewalled testing as a condition of employment until 2002), but it is not rules of baseball. Players can't seek to amend the infield fly rule or lobby that they should be allowed to gamble on their own baseball team. That's a rule and they don't get to decide those things. Yes, the 1991 rule may not of had a lot of teeth without testing, but it was a rule on the books.

Can you summarize? It's blocked from here You can get the tone of the article by the URL itself, but here's a snippet:Moments after Bonds crossed home plate into the loving arms of his family and the eventual judgment of history, he addressed the fans, thanking them for their support on his long, hard road of perverting baseball.

"Thank you very much. I got to thank all of you, all the fans here in San Francisco. It's been fantastic," he said to his deluded and complicit home crowd as his godfather Willie Mays, a fading symbol of what baseball once was, stood at his side.

As soon as Bonds completed his self-congratulation, a self-conscious gasp could be heard as a videotaped message from Hank Aaron was played over the video screen, sending surprise and a fleeting moment of uncomfortable self-awareness through both the crowd and Bonds himself.

"Throughout the past century, the home run has held a special place in baseball and I have been privileged to hold this record for 33 of those years," said Aaron, whose legacy of persevering with profound personal dignity through racism and persecution to become the all-time home run leader will hopefully not be tarnished by public acknowledgment of Bonds.

"I move over now and offer my best wishes to Barry and his family on this historic achievement," Aaron concluded, displaying infinitely more grace than Bonds, baseball fans, and perhaps even baseball itself had any right to ask of him.

I am going to quote an article from USA Today in 2005:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-01-12-steroid-policy_x.htm

Evolution of the steroid policy 2002

• Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, players and owners agree to hold survey testing in 2003. If more than 5% of results from the anonymous tests are positive, formal testing and penalties will be put into place the next year.

2003

• Baseball announces after the season that 5% to 7% of test results were positive, triggering the new policy in 2004.

2004

• Each player is tested once a year in season. A first positive test results in treatment, followed by a 15-day suspension for a second positive and up to a year suspension for a fifth positive. The result is no player is suspended for steroid use.

2005

• Baseball agrees to a new policy. Banned substances include steroids, steroid precursors, designer steroids, masking agents and diuretics. There will be one unannounced mandatory test of each player during the season. In addition, there will be testing of randomly selected players, with no maximum number. And there will be random testing during the offseason. The penalties for a positive result are, first positive, 10 days; second, 30 days; third, 60 days; fourth, one year, and all without pay.

Baseball's new steroid policy

Banned substances

• Steroids, steroid precursors and designer steroids, as well as masking agents and diuretics.

Testing

• One unannounced mandatory test of each player during season.

• Random testing of selected players, with no maximum number.

• Random testing during the offseason.

Suspensions (all without pay)

• First positive test: 10 days.

• Second positive test: 30 days.

• Third positive test: 60 days.

• Fourth positive test: One year.

Why is it that to you breaking a rule in baseball is significantly worse than breaking the law to you?

Yes, even if the baseball's official stance is that steroid usage before 2002 wasn't against the rules ... it was against the law. Thats considerably worse than breaking a baseball rule. He may have the record, but like I said - Hank Aaron has it in my book and I could give two shits about Barry Bonds or the rest of the players who broke the law or cheated. And this wouldn't be such a huge story if there weren't thousands upon thousands of fans who agree with me.

It wouldn't have been against baseball's rules for Hank Aaron to kill Barry Bonds so he didn't break his record ... but that would have been against the law. Would you have been ok with that, too?

Spent the day with Cal and Billy Ripkin on Sunday and when my camera man asked if they were gonna watch the game to see if Barry Bonds was gonna get his home run Billy quickly replied "who cares?" While I don't know either of them well at all, the distaste they've both expressed for steroid use as well as the lessons they teach all of their students in the amateur baseball league I'd imagine its pretty safe to say neither of them nor their father ever touched or endorsed the stuff.

And Thormir, that piece in The Onion was pretty great and surprisingly less tongue in cheek than their usual work. Very nice find.

Do you seriously think Hank Aaron never broke a single law?

Well if you can cite the few that were related to playing baseball I'd be happy to take that under consideration. But given that no one has in the past 33 years you might have a tough time looking.

Maybe Aaron ran a red-light that let him get to a practice early and perfect his swing more so than he would have otherwise. That's as plausible as most Bonds' criticism.

Why is it that to you breaking a rule in baseball is significantly worse than breaking the law to you?

Yes, even if the baseball's official stance is that steroid usage before 2002 wasn't against the rules ... it was against the law. "


Only recently was taking steriods considered worse than getting a DUI. When I was late teens early 20's you could purchase a vial of Test for $25 and the offense was nothing ..about equal to a parking ticket. Players who get DUI's should have their records wacked as well? Did Barry get convicted of something I don't know about?

lol Sanchek are you serious?

I dont even care about baseball or bonds, and even I think its completely cheap and stupid that anyone cares about his accomplishments when he uses a performance enchancing drug that is against the law to use.

If the President used Meth but it wasn't against the white house rules for him to use meth, would you think its ok?

Only recently was taking steriods considered worse than getting a DUI. When I was late teens early 20's you could purchase a vial of Test for $25 and the offense was nothing ..about equal to a parking ticket. Players who get DUI's should have their records wacked as well? Did Barry get convicted of something I don't know about?

Getting a DUI helps you play? Though I actually concider a DUI conciderably worse than taking steroids because you are endangering other's lives instead of your own and don't know anyone who would view it the other way around.

Steroids medically increase your body's capacity to play baseball (and other sports). They are illegal. Using them illegally in order to achieve better in baseball makes your baseball accomplishments less legit in my (and probably the vast majorities) eyes. DUIs and all that are irrelevant.

The real sin of the steroids is that since the major leagues are so wrought with them highschool and college students are getting into them as well in order to be able to compete and get into the major leagues. Revearing one who's accomplishments aided by steroids only makes that problem worse.

Getting a DUI helps you play? Though I actually concider a DUI conciderably worse than taking steroids because you are endangering other's lives instead of your own and don't know anyone who would view it the other way around.


Should the Cardinals give up their World Series Title from last year since their coach got a DUI?

If the President used Meth but it wasn't against the white house rules for him to use meth, would you think its ok?
You mean the President that was elected even though everyone knew he had used cocaine? Nice example!

Should the Cardinals give up their World Series Title from last year since their coach got a DUI?

Thats the dumbest thing you've ever said on these forums. This isn't even about his record being official - its about how I think its not worth anyone's concideration.

And again ... DUI didn't help them win the World Series. Steroids did help him break the record. If you can't grasp that concept its not even worth discussing anymore.

Yes, even if the baseball's official stance is that steroid usage before 2002 wasn't against the rules ... it was against the law. Thats considerably worse than breaking a baseball rule.

Getting a DUI helps you play?
So, um, which is it?

Thats the dumbest thing you've ever said on these forums. This isn't even about his record being official - its about how I think its not worth anyone's concideration.

And again ... DUI didn't help them win the World Series. Steroids did help him break the record. If you can't grasp that concept its not even worth discussing anymore.

Was Bonds convicted of taken steroids or did he fail a piss test?

Not that I know of. Did I miss something recently?

Barry Bonds didn't take steroids as much as OJ Simpson didn't murder anyone. Maybe you can't prove it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html

Great, you quoted an article that states a falsehood, how does that answer the fact that Fay Vincent ( then commisioner of baseball for those that didn't know ) explicitly added steroids to the list of banned substances in 1991?

I'll quote from ESPN The Magazine

In truth, steroids have been banned in baseball since 1991 -- in a policy baseball officials made little effort to publicize. A source provided a copy of the seven-page document to ESPN The Magazine on the condition of anonymity. Titled "Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program," the memo was sent to all major-league clubs on June 7 of that year by then-commissioner Fay Vincent. He spelled out components of the program, and ordered, "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids." On May 15, 1997, acting commissioner Bud Selig distributed a nearly identical version of the drug memo, again citing steroids and directing clubs to post the policy in clubhouses and distribute copies to players.

Here is a copy of the 1997 Selig memo

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/drugs/policy/baseball/index.html

Here is a copy of the 1991 Vincent memo

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=25

You can download your own copy of the Vincent memo here

http://bob.sabr.org


Do you still hold that using steroids was not against the rules of baseball before 2002?

Thats the dumbest thing you've ever said on these forums. This isn't even about his record being official - its about how I think its not worth anyone's concideration.

And again ... DUI didn't help them win the World Series. Steroids did help him break the record. If you can't grasp that concept its not even worth discussing anymore.

Though you did say you felt a DUI was worse than someone using steroids. How do you know that drinking didn't help Larussa deal with the pressure of being a manager better? People have been using greenies for DECADES, and YES they help performance by helping people deal with fatigue. No one really made a big deal of them until recently, and many many Hall of Famers did them. You have people in the Hall that actually DID cheat against the rules of baseball (how about Gaylord Perry and his spitball?).

Do you folks that are so quick to jump on Bonds realize that there have been more pitchers suspended for steroids thusfar than position players? No that doesn't make it right for anyone to do steroids, but it does put some things into perspective. Ken Caminiti admitted to doing steroids right before he died and MLB didn't take away his MVP (there, there's an example you might like instead of my Larussa comment Kelraz).

People are more up in arms because Bonds isn't a likable guy and Aaron was more than anything. That is the only reason I can figure that people focus on him and all but ignore everyone else. I don't want to equate it to racism because I hate when other people play that card. Bonds is a jerk, period. That doesn't make him potentially doing steroids worse than anyone else that did them.

Bonds is/was one of the all time greats before anyone thought he might have done steroids. Before anyone tries to dispute that, he is the only player with over 400 stolen bases and 400 home runs (he's over 500 for both actually), a number he acheived before people feel he started using. He had 3 MVPs and 8 gold gloves before people believe he started juicing too. He was going to be playing in the majors regardless. I think it's worse for the marginal player that used steroids that might have kept someone who was clean from living their dream of playing in the majors. Bonds didn't do that.

Roger Clemens has the most wins of anyone since Warren Spahn retired 45 years ago (and he's second all time in strikeouts). Clemens had great performance after the age of 40. Clemens body grew as he got older. He didn't get injured severely late in his career. His power pitching numbers didn't really decrease as he got older. All could point to steroids, but people don't make a big deal out of him. There are three differances between the two. Clemens isn't quite as big of a jerk (though he's still a jerk). One is a pitcher and one is a positional player. And one is white. Neither have tested positive for steroids. Both have been named in steroid scandals. Bonds was obviously named in the BALCO scandal, and Clemens was named in the Jason Grimsley scandal (which hasn't come to fruition completely either). The only reason I bring Clemens up here is because he's another HUGE name that's been linked to steroids that's still playing and has significant stats himself.

Where's the outrage to Clemens more than being a mercenary pitcher going after the money? Where are the boos to Clemens more than being a Yankee? Where are the people questioning his 350+ wins and 4000+ strikeouts? Before anyone says that Clemens doesn't have the wins record, NO ONE will ever break Cy Young's records now because of how pitchers are used now. Clemens will probably forever be the wins leader after the expansion era of baseball (not talkign about florida, colorado, tampa here, but the expansion era of the 1960s).

It's hypocracy and people blindly following what the media tells them they should feel. That's the only justification I can find for the outrage with Bonds and not the others that one could reasonably suspect.

How do you know that drinking didn't help Larussa deal with the pressure of being a manager better?I have no stake in this argument, but these sorts of hypotheticals are non sequiturs at best. It's hypocracy and people blindly following what the media tells them they should feel.This and its preceding arguments are knee-jerk defensiveness without a hint of evidence. I questioned whether Bonds' eventual record breaking would mean anything long before I heard anything from him that testified to his asshole nature. That a highly ranked athlete or celebrity or politician is an asshole isn't exactly breaking news. I ignore everyone else because I don't know much about baseball, but I'd happily throw them in the same boat.

I can't speak for anyone but myself on this, but you're painting Bonds' detractors with an unjustly broad brush and a lot of irrelevent (or incorrect, per Filatal) assertions.

Yes, part of it is Bond's isn't a terribly nice person. I don't see it being racial. My personal biggest problem isn't Bonds so much as the whole epidemic of the late 90's and baseball's very slow reaction to it. I don't see McGwire getting parades ( or HoF votes ), Sosa isn't held in near the esteem he once was, yea, Clemens is a jerk ( though kind of my kind of jerk, sticking up for a teammate by beaning Rios is good kind of old school in my book ) but isn't liked outside of NY that much ( partly because of stuff like that ). But there is one thing none of them have that Bonds does have: The primo top of the mountain record in baseball - Home Run King. Like it or not, that makes Bonds the poster boy of the steroid era. And that is why he gets more hate that the others. No one that condemns the era is giving anyone a free pass, but those guys will be mostly forgotten in 50 years.

I am ignoring all of the should we take so-and-so's MVP away because I have never said take Bond's record away. He has it, that is done for now. I don't hold Bonds as responsible as I do Baseball in general for weak enforcement. What pisses me off is actual fans of baseball like Taleran are trying to make it seem that steroid usage is no big deal, those of us that condemn the era are just a bunch of whining jerks. Keep that additude and the sport won't even be recognizable in 10 or 15 years. Not to even mention the damage that will be done to kids who dream of playing in the majors that will have to start artificially bulking up when they are still maturing.

I can't speak for anyone but myself on this, but you're painting Bonds' detractors with an unjustly broad brush and a lot of irrelevent (or incorrect, per Filatal) assertions.

How is that any differant for the way people reacting to people that like Bonds, respect Bonds, or simply don't care?

I am ignoring all of the should we take so-and-so's MVP away because I have never said take Bond's record away. He has it, that is done for now.
You aren't but many are.

I don't hold Bonds as responsible as I do Baseball in general for weak enforcement. We agree there.

What pisses me off is actual fans of baseball like Taleran are trying to make it seem that steroid usage is no big deal, those of us that condemn the era are just a bunch of whining jerks. No I don't think there's any problem in condemning an era. I DO think there's a problem when people condemn one man from the era or blame one man for the ills of said era.

Keep that additude and the sport won't even be recognizable in 10 or 15 years. Not to even mention the damage that will be done to kids who dream of playing in the majors that will have to start artificially bulking up when they are still maturing.

I challenge you to find one time that I've ever said that steroids were ok. I don't have any issue with people looking down upon the whole era. I just have an issue with people (not saying you) that only blame Bonds for this, or focus only on Bonds.

Dude, you do know this thread was about Bonds, right? Not about baseball in general ... it was about Bonds breaking the record. In case you missed it, here's the first post in the thread. Notice the title specifically mentioning Bonds, not baseball, not Larussa, not Clemens - Barry Bonds.

Bonds sets a record...?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ex.html?cnn=yes

I have to say, I'm always skeptical of athletes and the worship they receive. I like sports, just not the money and energy wasting industry it's become. I think I've complained about that before. You try to enjoy a ballgame, but that's after a fortune paid for tickets and parking. If you want food, it's a $5 hot dog. And then we don't enjoy the game, we worship people for...for what? If this country could take even a small portion of the energy wasted on sports and dump it into, say, education, political reform, or heck even infrastructure repair, we'd see some pretty amazing changes.

Bonds is still under scrutiny for taking steroids. Should a record like this mean anything? Is he really a super athlete, a skilled human being whose devotion to physical excellence earned him a reward, or someone who achieved what many others could have through drug use? Shouldn't a line be drawn somewhere?

The issue of steroids is a lot bigger than just Bonds. For you to attempt to pull that card is just weak. People that are discussing Bonds now can't bring up other issues that may or may not be related because you don't like their arguments now? This is a board for discussions. Discussing other players that may be using, or may have benefitted from steroids IS related. No Larussa isn't related, but I'm not the person that brought DUI into this discussion.

Discussing Ken Caminiti, Clemens, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Giambi, Canseco, Matt Lawton, Brady Anderson, Jason Grimsley, Guillermo Mota, a score of minor leaguers (including the guy that gave up home run 755), etc., IS related.

How is that any differant for the way people reacting to people that like Bonds, respect Bonds, or simply don't care?I haven't seen people react to the people who like Bonds. I just see those who like Bonds reacting to his detractors by, for example, suggesting that they are behaving in a racist manner or hypocrites for not applying equal ire to some other ball player. The above is just another non sequitur.

How is it a non sequitur when I'm not making a statement of fact, but rather posing a question? I never misrepresented anything as fact by comparing it to something else in what you quoted there, I asked a question.

I haven't seen people react to the people who like Bonds.

Kelraz? See the post under this one for another example.

Dude, you do know this thread was about Bonds, right? Not about baseball in general ... it was about Bonds breaking the record. In case you missed it, here's the first post in the thread. Notice the title specifically mentioning Bonds, not baseball, not Larussa, not Clemens - Barry Bonds.Actually, I was horribly unclear, which is what I get from posting early in the morning. At least, I think it was morning. The Bonds article was the one that set me off.

The more I learn about professional sports, the more I am completely disgusted with the establishment. I enjoy sports, playing them, sometimes watching them, and I grew up a baseball fan before the strike, which killed it for my father and subsequently me. I am aghast at the amount of wasted energy on these guys, and the amount of justification that goes into defending their actions. Any sport, even (especially?) college level.

All this thread is missing so far is a,"But Clinton!" The amount of justification fans will pour into the poor behavior of their idols is astonishing.

Again, just think what could be accomplished if even a small percentage of the time and energy, or even revenue, invested into sports was focused elsewhere. In what way, shape, or form is this still a group we should look at as heroes, with abilities to emulate?

How is it a non sequitur when I'm not making a statement of fact, but rather posing a question? I never misrepresented anything as fact by comparing it to something else in what you quoted there, I asked a question.Each of your posts has been laden with non sequiturs, distractions and blind assertions. Larussa, Clemons, people not liking Bonds as the only reason you can see for their view on him, and so on. That you've managed to drag Kelraz off into bizarre tangents (and/or Kelraz dragged himself, I haven't kept track) is immaterial.


Bonds, his record, and whether that record deserves an asterisk are the foci of the thread. I think Filatal has the strongest presentation on this, but if you want to paint him and other detractors as possible racists who only hold their views because Bonds doesn't smile for the camera, go ahead. You'll have to do a lot more to prove your point, and it still won't apply to the asterisk question.

I think Filatal has the strongest presentation on this, but if you want to paint him and other detractors as possible racists who only hold their views because Bonds doesn't smile for the camera, go ahead.

I said specifically earlier that I didn't want to bring racism into this. I only mentioned one time that one of the differances between Clemens and Bonds is the color of their skin. I never called anyone on this board a racist, nor did I infer anyone was a racist.

I don't think all the hate levied at Bonds is because of the color of his skin. Do I think it matters to some in this country? I'd be stupid to think otherwise, but I don't think it's the prevalant attitude to this. I don't think it's even 1% of the reason for the dislike/hatred of Bonds.

There are many people that I've heard (Bonds included) that have tried to make this into a race issue, and I think that's a weak way to try and argue either side of it. Race DID matter in the way Aaron was treated when passing Ruth. I won't say racism is gone from our society 33 years later, but I don't think it's a significant issue here with Bonds.



Also, I have to comment on your statement of me making blind assertions. I need to restate that Bonds has never failed a steroids test (yes, I am WELL aware he failed an amphetimines test, but that's not the discussion here). I am not the only person on this board making assertions on either side of the discussion.

Actually, I was horribly unclear, which is what I get from posting early in the morning. At least, I think it was morning. The Bonds article was the one that set me off.

The more I learn about professional sports, the more I am completely disgusted with the establishment. I enjoy sports, playing them, sometimes watching them, and I grew up a baseball fan before the strike, which killed it for my father and subsequently me. I am aghast at the amount of wasted energy on these guys, and the amount of justification that goes into defending their actions. Any sport, even (especially?) college level.


Sadly when someone, anyone, gets the type of attention these players receive there is bound to be a few bad apples that stand out and seem undeserving. Though a lot of it is a product of simply getting too much attention and too much money spent on them Having sat in the room during all of the steroid hearings was bad enough (and yes, afterwards we talked about how Sosa and McGuire were undeserving of the fanfare reigning on them), but then following it up with the stories of how many high school students are doing steroids to stay competitive is sickening. I go to the baseball and football games because of work, the only sports I follow as a fan would be MLS soccer, college LAX, and college basketball - though the college sports are starting to become far too commercialized as well.

Its a dream that the people deserving of being our role models will ever become them, and get paid accordingly though. But professional sports will continue to exist and I can only hope that the negative publicity from actions like Bonds' will help to get the organisations to police themselves better in the future.

... but then following it up with the stories of how many high school students are doing steroids to stay competitive is sickening.

And that is the worst thing coming out of this entire thing, regardless of how prevalant the use of performance enhancing drugs are in professional sports. The feeling from children that they MUST do them to succeed is such a shame. That is something I definately whole heartedly agree with you on.

People are misunderstanding my stance on Bonds to perceive that I think steroids are ok. That's not true at all. The only time steroids should be used is under the direction of a doctor (like I have had to do for my lungs). I just don't like seeing one person being made the major scapegoat, especially in the absence of a failed drug test.

And I have to say that watching records chased is exhilerating for me. I will watch A-Rod intently as he approaches Bonds in 7-10 years too (and I HATE the Yankees). I watched every home run that McGwire hit after about 55 and the same with Sosa that year. I watched the last three games that Glavine pitched too because he may be the last person to ever win 300 games. I watched every Chargers game as as LT chased the TD record last year. I watched every Colts game as Manning approached the single season passing TD record. If anyone approaches Kareem's career scoring record, I will eagerly watch that too. I watched as Lance Armstrong won his final Tour too. Now, I'm not inferring or even suggesting that each of these players used anything illegal, some did probably, most didn't. I just like watching records fall.

This thread is entirely too long to read. That said, I did see TLR's name brought up and I will say that he can do no wrong - dwi or not!

and I HATE the Yankees


You sir are deserving of a duel!

I loathe the Yankees and the Giants!

/hates people from New Jersey as well. North at least.
/doesnt care that your house is 4 miles away from the one on the Sopranos.

Actually, I was horribly unclear, which is what I get from posting early in the morning. At least, I think it was morning. The Bonds article was the one that set me off.

The more I learn about professional sports, the more I am completely disgusted with the establishment. I enjoy sports, playing them, sometimes watching them, and I grew up a baseball fan before the strike, which killed it for my father and subsequently me. I am aghast at the amount of wasted energy on these guys, and the amount of justification that goes into defending their actions. Any sport, even (especially?) college level.

All this thread is missing so far is a,"But Clinton!" The amount of justification fans will pour into the poor behavior of their idols is astonishing.

Again, just think what could be accomplished if even a small percentage of the time and energy, or even revenue, invested into sports was focused elsewhere. In what way, shape, or form is this still a group we should look at as heroes, with abilities to emulate?

I see similarities in how you feel with how I feel. I stopped enjoying baseball around the same time. I liked the Braves when Dale Murphy played; when the strike hit I just stopped caring or even going to games. It took me 10 years to go a major league game (2004) and when I found out how much tickets were I was aghast and said I wouldn't go back.

I still think however this whole steroids thing is too little too late. If they would just legalize it this would all be a null issue after the smoke clears. I don't care about Bonds or any other athelete who is "golden" or "awesome" but I still have to think there is more involved in swinging the bat than just power and strength.

But what you said above struck a nerve with me. Not a bad one; a good one. You're right if we spent a little of those profits on something else who knows what could be accomplished. Fans, media, and sponsors have made the sports beast into what it is today and it wasn't something that happened overnight. But, yes I totally think it needs to change.

I personally haven't attended a Major League Baseball game since the summer of 1987 when the Pirates played the Mets at Three Rivers Stadium. I am taking my kid to a minor league game tonight, which will be her first experience with Baseball and ball park hot dogs (she'll be three in November). She's only been to one other pro sporting event, an NHL game.

I do plan on attending an MLB game this year though. Griffey has been my favorite player since late 1989, and I want to see him before the Reds potentially trade him this offseason since he plays about two hours from me atm.

I also try to attend about one Steelers game a year, but I've never been to a game in Pittsburgh. I've seen them several times in Cincinnati, a couple times in Indy, and this year I am going to game 1 in Cleveland (hopefully I come back alive from that one).

I see similarities in how you feel with how I feel. I stopped enjoying baseball around the same time. I liked the Braves when Dale Murphy played; when the strike hit I just stopped caring or even going to games. It took me 10 years to go a major league game (2004) and when I found out how much tickets were I was aghast and said I wouldn't go back.

I still think however this whole steroids thing is too little too late. If they would just legalize it this would all be a null issue after the smoke clears. I don't care about Bonds or any other athelete who is "golden" or "awesome" but I still have to think there is more involved in swinging the bat than just power and strength.

But what you said above struck a nerve with me. Not a bad one; a good one. You're right if we spent a little of those profits on something else who knows what could be accomplished. Fans, media, and sponsors have made the sports beast into what it is today and it wasn't something that happened overnight. But, yes I totally think it needs to change.

Well not that i don't agree with you because I am pissed about all the MMA fighters getting busted for roids, professional sports and its money pool is benefited by all. Having a professional any team (football, basketball, baseball) generates mad amount of income for said community. With hotels, restraunts, and other area attractions for fans to do on game day/weekend..it adds jobs and money to the local economy that wouldn't normally be there. So in effect those profits helping more than you probably realize.

I've been to 5 Brewers games this year all on free tickets!! Yea me because I wouldn't pay to go otherwise.

I think the state of baseball has come to a point where I must say:

Baseball isn't important any more. Big whoopty shit, Bonds broke a record. I don't give a crap about Bonds, I don't care if he did steroids in his eyes, and I no longer care about home run records.

The only exciting thing in the past few years in baseball has been the Red Sox coming back from 3 games down to win it all, and that storyline would have been interesting if it was cricket, soccer or any sport in the world, really.

/shrug

I still love baseball and my Cardinals. I went to about 8 or 9 games this summer and paid for at least half of them. I went last night and saw Rick Ankiel go yard for the first time since 2k (An awesome thing to witness). I do think that baseball has taken its hits, but we still sell out every game and I've never left unsatisfied.

How's Ankiel look in the field? I know he was knocking the cover off the ball in AAA this year.

I loathe the Yankees and the Giants!

/hates people from New Jersey as well. North at least.
/doesnt care that your house is 4 miles away from the one on the Sopranos.

Thats like everyone who goes to your school!

Maybe they get better grades than him.

Ankiel looked good in the outfield. He had one fly out that he looked a little flakey on, but he regained his composure and made the catch close to the track. It's a nice feel good story that hopefully can get the club turned around.

And yes, it is like my entire school. I've always hated the Yankees and what they represent for baseball but my hate for New Jersey is getting up there. The fact that you live in the armpit of the country isn't something to be proud of. They also can't drive worth shit. = /

I was in Mahwah,NJ for a business meeting last summer. Looked like a nice area but was only there for 3 days and spent most of it inside.

The fact that you live in the armpit of the country isn't something to be proud of. They also can't drive worth shit. = /

From that comment I'm guessing you've never been to North Jersey, it's far from being the armpit of the country.

The "Soprano house" is in the Caldwell area, not really north jersey so much as north central jersey. The North Jersey area is quite scenic with thousands of acres of open woodlands, dairy farms and state parks. New Jersey is one of those states where you are, in most cases, one hour from mountain getaways that rival the Blue Ridge mountains and Shenandoha Valley or one hour from great sea shore getaways that offer good beaches, good boating etc...

Now, as far as the Yankees go. I think most people from North Jersey like the Yankees as a point of convenience more than anything. If you live there you can simply drive across the GW Bridge right into the Bronx and watch a game, in most cases you can be there in 30 minutes or less. That being said, I'm more of a Mets fan but saw many more Yankee games out of convenience than I did the Mets.

I was in Mahwah,NJ

I grew up right next to there in Oakland.