Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stick a fork in bonds, he's done

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by cardsfanatic View Post
    Addition: One of my favorite posts recently illustrated my point and I'd love to find it and link it. Had me busting at the sides. A guy started a topic about baseball and one of the guys who is all enthralled by the steroid saga asked him "what is the point in this thread?" to which the poster replied with his entire post copied and pasted and at the end "so, he's a steroid user!" or something along those lines. Classic stuff. It's so true it's funny and sad at the same time -- to be a relevant topic in this board lately it must have steroids somewhere in the body of the message.

    I think you mean this one which is one of the best replys I've ever seen on a board. He got Mattingly good but he took it in stride as usual.

    Originally posted by EricDavis View Post
    Jason Lane and Morgan Ensberg played college baseball together at the University of Southern California. Then in 2000 Ensberg made his way to the Houston Astros. Lane followed him two years later in 2002. After several years together Ensberg was dealt to the Padres in 2007. A few weeks later Lane was dealt to the Padres. After 2007 the Yankees signed a contract with Lane. And just now the Yankees signed Ensberg. Crazy, huh?


    Originally posted by Mattingly View Post
    I'm curious, what were you thinking of doing with this thread? Were you mentioning it just for conversation's place? Did you wish to find some similar course of events?


    Originally posted by EricDavis View Post
    I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by whoisonit View Post
      We live in a celebrity driven age. They're victims of the times. We shouldn't accuse them of not reading the threads, besides, many of them do read the threads and it's unfair to slander them all. The posters are all worth following, and now we're supposed to disregard them because someone like cardsfanatic is bashing them ? How do we even know when they stopped reading through them ? Besides, they used to read through them before they stopped reading through them. It is terrible to further heap injustice upon these poor victims without proof.

      Originally posted by Doctor X View Post
      Is there any evidence they knowingly failed to read the thread?

      --J.D.

      Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
      That wouldn't be fair to the members that like their name on the front page of CE. They would actually have to read though a thread seeing where to put their reply that they use for a thread title.



      Like I said, it wouldn't be fair to them. I don't know for sure if they read the threads or not but I do know that their rants that they use for thread titles would fit in one of the other threads that have been started, on the topic they are pertaining to. Also there is a few posters that have more topics started then they have replys in their profile.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
        sandlot: A single positive test would normally require a second test to rule out the possibility of a false positive, no?

        true, sandlot.
        but if a second positive test result does exist somewhere out there, the feds do not have possession of it.
        That's part of what I was trying to get at.

        I've no doubt that lots of ballplayers -- and other athletes -- have recorded innumerable positive tests, but a certain percentage of those results have been found to be errant and were disproven by futher testing. So if the Feds, or somebody, have possession of a single "result," that may in itself be evidence of nothing. It could have been a false positive, a testing error, a tainted sample, who knows? The question is, do they have the record of the results of a followup test that was done to determine the accuracy of the initial rest result? Because if they don't, then what they have is essentially a meaningless piece of paper. However, if they had a second positive result, then Bonds would be in trouble.

        You say the Feds don't possess a second result and I think that almost certainly must be the case because if they had two results, the case would be over. The other query is, when a test is done, is the sample retained for future testing, or is it disposed of? If the Feds have an actual sample that was tested just once, the option of further resting might exist, though it's easy to imagine some of the arguments that would be raised by the defense regarding reliability and admissability. In certain sense it doesn't matter, though, because the story has already done further damage to Bonds in the public-opinion courtroom.

        Comment


        • #79
          sandlot: A single positive test would normally require a second test to rule out the possibility of a false positive, no?

          true, sandlot.
          but if a second positive test result does exist somewhere out there, the feds do not have possession of it.

          sandlot: So if the Feds, or somebody, have possession of a single "result," that may in itself be evidence of nothing.

          evidence of nothing. agreed.

          sandlot: The question is, do they have the record of the results of a followup test that was done to determine the accuracy of the initial rest result?

          in all of the mountain of paper that the feds have -- apparently not >> no.

          sandlot: Because if they don't, then what they have is essentially a meaningless piece of paper.

          meaningless piece of paper. this seems to be the case.
          besides, it is reasonable to believe that bonds was not ever told of any positive test result. that is critical to the feds' case.

          You say the Feds don't possess a second result and I think that almost certainly must be the case because if they had two results, the case would be over.

          "over" to the degree of gagne c.2003 "game over," yes.

          The other query is, when a test is done, is the sample retained for future testing, or is it disposed of?

          this depends entirely on the k.
          under the work agreement in place at the time, samples were stored (and still are. also, they may be used for later testing, courts have held.)
          in this case, though, quest did not keep unnamed samples given to them by balco for testing.

          In a certain sense it doesn't matter, though, because the story has already done further damage to Bonds in the public-opinion courtroom.

          agreed.
          but bonds doesn't really give a flying fig about the courtroom of public opinion about this matter. on what occurs on the field is different for him, though.
          "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

          Comment


          • #80
            Is it possible that Bonds didn't know he was being tested for steroids?

            Perhaps Bonds was a science experiment. Perhaps he wasn't informed that he'd volunteered for the job.

            Seems plausible, Bonds being the moron he appears to be, and it reeks of a participant without the brains God gave a duck.

            Am I reading too much into this?

            "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it."
            Carl Yastrzemski

            Comment


            • #81
              runningshoes: Is it possible that Bonds didn't know he was being tested for steroids?

              yes.

              runningshoes: Perhaps Bonds was a science experiment. Perhaps he wasn't informed that he'd volunteered for the job.

              an experiment? that's funny!
              look at it this way: bonds brought in lotsa cash to balco, (player to teammate: "hey, bonds is with those guys. let's check it out".) so balco had lots at stake with the testing status of their premeire client. if bonds did test positive (in a non-mlb test) it is reasonable that balco would not apprise bonds of the test result and tweak the substances without notifying bonds.
              it is impossible to distinguish the contents of the substances without a chemistry kit.

              runningshoes: Seems plausible, Bonds being the moron he appears to be...

              may be. but no bigger a moron than the hundreds of baseball players who used.
              "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

              Comment


              • #82
                Even if Bonds and Clemens did, in fact, both use steroids, I think that Bonds comes off looking much worse. First of all, there is MUCH more statistical evidence that Bonds did juice. Second of all, steroids help hitters much more than they do pitchers. Third, and most importantly, he had no REASON for taking steroids to begin with. Here was a guy who was still posting great seasons and hadnt even reached his decline yet..yet decided to juice. Why? Not to hold onto his job or to prolong his career, but simply to try and make a mockery of the record books (which he did). If Clemens had juiced, it would have been to either overcome injury or to help his workouts. Or maybe to try and prolong his career. He wasnt a guy who was already doing great then becoming greedy and trying to cheat to break all the records done by better players. I know technically the crimes are the same. But to me Its like he difference between a guy stealing who is poor and needs the money to live, and a guy stealing who is already rich and trying to become the richest man in the world. One is survival and one is pure greed.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by willshad View Post
                  Even if Bonds and Clemens did, in fact, both use steroids, I think that Bonds comes off looking much worse. First of all, there is MUCH more statistical evidence that Bonds did juice. Second of all, steroids help hitters much more than they do pitchers. Third, and most importantly, he had no REASON for taking steroids to begin with. Here was a guy who was still posting great seasons and hadnt even reached his decline yet..yet decided to juice.
                  I thought you just assumed he always juiced. You have said this on many occasions.

                  Why are you suddenly changing your story?
                  Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I believe he was juicing as far back as 1992, but obviously he was doing something more starting 2001 or so. Whether he just started juicing then, or whether he increased what he was taking, or just taking different stuff, is irrelevant. The fact is that he was already still doing very well, then decided improvement was necessary anyway.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by willshad View Post
                      Second of all, steroids help hitters much more than they do pitchers.
                      There is no evidence to back this up.

                      Originally posted by willshad View Post
                      Third, and most importantly, he had no REASON for taking steroids to begin with. Here was a guy who was still posting great seasons and hadnt even reached his decline yet..yet decided to juice. Why? Not to hold onto his job or to prolong his career, but simply to try and make a mockery of the record books (which he did). If Clemens had juiced, it would have been to either overcome injury or to help his workouts. Or maybe to try and prolong his career.
                      So now we know why certain players juiced? It's good to see you know everything, despite the facts showing other wise.
                      According to Kimberly Belle, the person closest to an eye-witness we have on Bonds, Bonds told her he started using steroids for injuries. On the other-hand, according to Brian McNamee, Clemens started using steroids well, because he just felt like using steroids. Never does he mention anything about Clemens using for injuries as you assert, which is a different case with Bonds. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a rant, shall we?

                      Originally posted by willshad View Post
                      He wasnt a guy who was already doing great then becoming greedy and trying to cheat to break all the records done by better players. I know technically the crimes are the same. But to me Its like he difference between a guy stealing who is poor and needs the money to live, and a guy stealing who is already rich and trying to become the richest man in the world. One is survival and one is pure greed.
                      Again, this is nothing but assumptions. From the evidence we have thus far, Bonds started using steroids because of an injury, Clemens started for apparently no reason. I'm not saying Belle or McNamee are the most credible people in the world (they both would gain by lying), but if i'm going to buy what one says, I'll buy what the other says.

                      BTW, records Bonds shattered by "better players" only really refers to Ruth. The walks record was once held by Henderson, a player Bonds was already better than by 1999. He broke Mcgwire's record, another alleged juicer, and clearly inferior player to him. Aaron? Bonds was arguably better than Aaron before his Ruthian years.


                      Originally posted by willshad View Post
                      I believe he was juicing as far back as 1992, but obviously he was doing something more starting 2001 or so. Whether he just started juicing then, or whether he increased what he was taking, or just taking different stuff, is irrelevant. The fact is that he was already still doing very well, then decided improvement was necessary anyway.
                      So now he was juicing since 92? How do you know Clemens was clean his entire career?

                      In fact, using your logic, since there's supposedly "less statistical evidence" that Clemens juiced at a later age compared to Bonds, couldn't one argue that Clemens was juicing much earlier than Bonds? Or does this not apply to Clemens, because you like him, as opposed to you disliking Bonds?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I dont like or dislike anybody. True Im making assumptions, but thats all that ANYONE does (including courts and public opinion) in any case. You look at the evidence and try to make an objective decision based on it. The fact is that I dont see real evidence that steroids helps pitchers as much as it does hitters. I have yet to see a single case where a pitcher suddenly statistically betterered his performance a great degree after juicing, to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time.. Pitchers are more inconsistent than hitters anyway, so any varaince in performance can be due to injuries , an off year, or a career year. True, you can say that about hitters as well, but i can site case after case of hitters suddenly having much better numbers from one year to the next, then continuing it. Most of these guys also suddenly drastically increased muscle mass from one season to the next as well. Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Thome, Giambi, the list goes on. Can you make a similiar list for pitchers? If as many pitchers had been juicing as hitters, then why not the same level of improvement?

                        But thats not really the issue here. It has been well documented that Bonds, after seeing the press that Sosa and Mcgwire got in 1998, decided he needed to be 'the man' again and take steroids as a way of showing these guys up. In 1999 he got hurt and fell off the radar, but still hadnt shown any real signs of decline.he may well have started juicing to overcome that injury. But after 2000 and 2001, when he obviously no longer had to worry about the injury, and was breaking records and doing things no one had ever done, why keep taking them? What possible motivation can there be? He had been documented saying he wished to wipe out all of Ruth's records, and continued to try and wipe out Aaron's records. He wasnt doing it to keep his job, or to overcome injury. Its not an assumption or a guess, because he wasnt injured and wasnt in danger of losing his job. he wanted to break the records of those guys by juicing because he knew he couldnt do it naturally. If you can give me another possible motivation then Im willing to listen. Clems on the other hand wasnt breaking any records. All of the lifetime pitching records are well out of reach. He was already a hall of famer, but starting to get injured a lot. The way I see it he was either taking (if indeed he was) them due to his injuries, or to try and prolong his career. True, he improved a lot in 1997-1998, but it wasnt any better than he had done earlier in his career. In fact 1997 was probably his best year, and it was when he was supposedly 'clean'. And again, if he was indded still juicing when he went to the Yankees, why did he suddenly do so much worse? Either he WASNT juicing, or the steroids werent helping him a whole lot. Or maybe they helped him those 2 years, but not after. The picture certainly isnt as clear as it is with Bonds.
                        Im not trying to single out anyone. If Clemens suddenly became Sandy Koufax in 1999 and maintained if for the next 4 years, id be saying the same things about him as i do about Bonds. But the evidence just isnt there.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by willshad View Post
                          I dont like or dislike anybody. True Im making assumptions, but thats all that ANYONE does (including courts and public opinion) in any case. You look at the evidence and try to make an objective decision based on it. The fact is that I dont see real evidence that steroids helps pitchers as much as it does hitters.
                          Juan Rincon, Kevin Brown, Dan Naulty, Jason Grimsley, just to name a few. Grimsley is a fantastic example of what steroids did for him starting in 1999. Naulty is another fine example. Paxton Crawford is another example, and he even details how steroids aided him with his velocity.




                          Originally posted by willshad View Post
                          But thats not really the issue here. It has been well documented that Bonds, after seeing the press that Sosa and Mcgwire got in 1998, decided he needed to be 'the man' again and take steroids as a way of showing these guys up. In 1999 he got hurt and fell off the radar, but still hadnt shown any real signs of decline.he may well have started juicing to overcome that injury. But after 2000 and 2001, when he obviously no longer had to worry about the injury, and was breaking records and doing things no one had ever done, why keep taking them? What possible motivation can there be? He had been documented saying he wished to wipe out all of Ruth's records, and continued to try and wipe out Aaron's records.
                          I'm not sure what his reasons were, I'm just going by what his "alleged" ex-mistress said.

                          Originally posted by willshad View Post
                          He wasnt doing it to keep his job, or to overcome injury. Its not an assumption or a guess, because he wasnt injured and wasnt in danger of losing his job. he wanted to break the records of those guys by juicing because he knew he couldnt do it naturally. If you can give me another possible motivation then Im willing to listen. Clems on the other hand wasnt breaking any records. All of the lifetime pitching records are well out of reach. He was already a hall of famer, but starting to get injured a lot. The way I see it he was either taking (if indeed he was) them due to his injuries, or to try and prolong his career. True, he improved a lot in 1997-1998, but it wasnt any better than he had done earlier in his career. In fact 1997 was probably his best year, and it was when he was supposedly 'clean'. And again, if he was indded still juicing when he went to the Yankees, why did he suddenly do so much worse? Either he WASNT juicing, or the steroids werent helping him a whole lot. Or maybe they helped him those 2 years, but not after. The picture certainly isnt as clear as it is with Bonds.
                          Sure, Clemens wasn't breaking any records, but that doesn't change the fact that he aged extremely well. With that said, yes, his statline isn't as stark as Bonds, but what does that mean exactly? It seems your focused on the sustained success of four years. Yes, Bonds had four years where he was breaking records, but what about in 1999? 2005? What about 2006, 2007? Did he just stop juicing? What made steroid testing better from 05-07, then it was from 03-04? You also mention that Clemens was allegedly "clean" in his best season, that's true, but arguably so was Bonds. Game of Shadows never mentions once that Bonds was using steroids in 2004, which if not his best season, it was his second best.





                          Originally posted by willshad View Post
                          Im not trying to single out anyone. If Clemens suddenly became Sandy Koufax in 1999 and maintained if for the next 4 years, id be saying the same things about him as i do about Bonds. But the evidence just isnt there.

                          Fair enough, though if your looking for someone who fits that description, Randy Johnson is your man.


                          BTW, you mentioned Jim Thome, what proof do you have that he juiced?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            willshad: True Im making assumptions, but thats all that ANYONE does in any case.
                            i hafta disagree with you, willshad. not all posts re substances are based on assumptions.

                            I have yet to see a single case where a pitcher suddenly statistically betterered his performance a great degree after juicing, to a level he hadn't attained before, then continues it for a period of time.
                            you hafta know where to look.

                            Most of these guys also suddenly drastically increased muscle mass from one season to the next as well. Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Thome, Giambi, the list goes on.
                            you list exactly 6 players from a list that "goes on". care to take a stab at additional names?

                            Can you make a similiar list for pitchers?
                            you are caught up in physique build-up to prove your point, but that's a false trail.

                            If as many pitchers had been juicing as hitters, then why not the same level of improvement?
                            this "level of improvement", it is based on what?

                            It has been well documented that Bonds .... decided he needed to be 'the man' again...
                            the original source of this assumption is... care to guess?

                            But after 2000 and 2001, when [Bonds] obviously no longer had to worry about the injury...
                            let's say that you are correct about bonds' health being a motivating factor to use.
                            why would the worry stop? if anything he would be more prone. no?


                            He had been documented [that] he wished to wipe out all of Ruth's records...
                            that was just bonds doing some flapping.

                            He wasnt doing it to keep his job, or to overcome injury.
                            um...

                            Its not an assumption or a guess, because he wasnt injured and wasnt in danger of losing his job.
                            ???

                            If you can give me another possible motivation then Im willing to listen.
                            see above.
                            "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              If you honestly believe that Bonds suddenly stopped taking steroids before 2004, then proceeded to post a .609 on base percentage and an .812 slugging percentage cleanly, at the age of 39, then all i can assume is that Bonds is paying you to stick up for him here. Its obvious that Bonds stopped juicing after 2004, and you can tell just from the numbers. He was still a great hitter in 2006-2007, but certainly not the beast he was previously. It looked like normal decline years for a hall of fame player. He wasnt a lifetime .290 career hitter suddenly hitting .370.
                              Oh and heres a few more names for you:

                              Ken Caminiti, Bret Boone, Ivan Rodriguez, Albert Belle, Luis Gonzalez, Greg Vaughan, Jim Edmonds..and thats ust off the top of my head.

                              I dont have 'proof' that Thome juiced, but it is clear he did SOMETHING after 2000 to suddenly start hitting a home run every 10 at bats for the rest of his career.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by willshad View Post
                                If you honestly believe that Bonds suddenly stopped taking steroids before 2004, then proceeded to post a .609 on base percentage and an .812 slugging percentage cleanly, at the age of 39, then all i can assume is that Bonds is paying you to stick up for him here. Its obvious that Bonds stopped juicing after 2004, and you can tell just from the numbers. He was still a great hitter in 2006-2007, but certainly not the beast he was previously. It looked like normal decline years for a hall of fame player. He wasnt a lifetime .290 career hitter suddenly hitting .370.
                                If Bonds 04 is a juiced season, why is clemens 1997 season "alleged clean"?

                                There's no more or less evidence that Clemens was juiced in 1997 compared to Bonds in 2004. You either believe they both juiced those seasons, or there is a bias.




                                Originally posted by willshad View Post
                                Ken Caminiti, Bret Boone, Ivan Rodriguez, Albert Belle, Luis Gonzalez, Greg Vaughan, Jim Edmonds..and thats ust off the top of my head.

                                The majority of those names aren't linked to steroids. If we are just throwing out random names, include Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson as well.

                                Originally posted by willshad View Post
                                I dont have 'proof' that Thome juiced, but it is clear he did SOMETHING after 2000 to suddenly start hitting a home run every 10 at bats for the rest of his career.
                                Hard Work?

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X