Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do we even bother?

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

  • #31
    It s a theory, BUT Macgwire changed his swing as well from his earlier days in oakland. The whole group of them are guilty. Macgwire palmero all of them. Have you seen Mark macgwire since hes been off the juice. Do you think the skinny mac could have produced like the roided Mac?
    Last edited by west coast orange and black; 01-04-2006, 05:19 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      sandlot: (1) enlargement of his physique and rapid muscle-mass gain
      bonds has employed the very best nutrition and diet experts for years. he also radically changed his workout regimen, exacting great results.

      (2) significantly enhanced performance as measured by production
      this seems to be arrived at by going backwards.
      if not for the production, would it still be claimed that bonds used?

      (3) high-level performance at an age when most players evidence a decline
      remarkable achievements not easily explained. but i kinda look at this claim as i do sprinters:
      it is not necessarily the fastest who wins, but the one who slows the slowest.

      (4) admitted use of supplements, the nature of which he's unclear about but categorically asserts were not steroids
      check.

      (5) accusations by Jose Canseco, who's been right about some other players
      not sure that this happened, sandlot.

      (6) association with Balco
      nearly 700 professional athletes from at least 67 professional basketball, football, hockey and baseball teams used balco products. are they all guilty simply by association?

      (7) statements attributed to players like Sheffield saying they'd wanted to use whatever Barry used, and were given "clear" and "cream"
      the substances allegedly used by sheffield that were tested by the feds could not be satisfactorily linked to the substances known as "the cream" and "the clear".
      it is not known what the substances used by sheffield actually were.
      it is not known what the substances used by bonds actually were.
      bonds claimed that he used legal substances only.

      (8) statements attributed to Barry to the effect that there are more important things to talk about than whether he and/or others used steroids
      that was indeed his stated opinion.

      (9) the fact that he was subpoenad to testify to a Grand Jury looking into drugs and sports
      he had a working relationship with victor conte and balco so it was a natch that he would be subpeonaed; bonds was the big fish from day one.

      (10) the [selective] leaking to the press of testimony given to the Grand Jury, but which to date has not resulted in a charge against Bonds or any other player
      either true or: the entire testimony was handed to fainaru-wada and williams but they cherry-picked it for their own purposes. (same result, though: no federal indictments.)
      i believe that the two san francisco chronicle staff reporters are still on leave from the newspaper writing their book on the balco/bonds affair.

      (11) statements made by Bonds that have indicated arrogance, disrespect for great players, possible rascism, bad taste and occasional stupidity
      true.

      (12) never having liked Bonds to begin with
      true.

      (13) the lack of any other satisfactory explanation for his late-career achievements beyond possessing amazing talent and longevity
      though unsatisfactory to many, i still hafta go with ken on this one... sorta.
      bonds not only changed his entire approach to the batter's box over the watchful eyes of bonds the senior and mays, but he also became a more dedicated bonds, a hungrier, more disciplined bonds.
      the two versions of the same man are nowhere near related, so to speak.

      ..................................

      (1) he has never failed a drug test
      true.

      (2) he's never admitted use
      true.

      (3) he's not been proven in any way to have ever used banned products
      true.

      (4) he is considered even by many critics probably the best baseball player, ever
      true.

      (5) his work ethic and exercise regime are legendary
      true.

      (6) a lot of the criticism of him seems to contain a racial component, even when that's denied
      true.

      (7) while it's agreed that steroid use might aid short-term healing and recovery, there is no concrete scientific proof that they will help anyone to perform at a level beyond the talent that he or she naturally possesses
      true. no quantifying evidence has ever been produced.

      (8) in America, a person -- even Barry Bonds -- has a Constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty
      true.

      What have I left out?
      not much, man. nearly nothing, in my book.
      Last edited by west coast orange and black; 01-05-2006, 12:22 AM.
      "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by KHenry14
        Sand, you made a number of valid points, and I agree with many of them, except for #13. I've said it many times on this board and I'll keep saying it, Barry made a significant change in his swing that turned him into a power hitter instead of an inside out gap hitter. So his numbers from early in his career to later are going to be different because of that change. And this change didn't come overnight, it took a few years of work with his Dad and Willie to get it right. Plus, his plate discipline went from good to legendary, and PED's didn't have anything to do with either of those improvements.

        Mind you, I'm not saying that his numbers were solely based upon a swing change and plate discipline, all I am arguing is that there is one factual reason for a performance increase.
        To be clear, I'm not making the case for or against, simply summarizing what I recall, and putting it out there for comment, correction, clarification or whatever. As for #13, the Swing Factor: Yes, he changed the swing, just as Tiger Woods changed his (evidence of steroids in golf?), and this no doubt affected his performance. But we have no idea (a) how the performance was affected, (b) what his performance would have been had he not made those adjustments, or (c) whether he was using PEDs at the same time, or (d) if he was using PEDS, what effects if any would hypothetically have been achieved by the complex and complicated combination/interaction of PEDS, changed swing, physical alteration, superb coaching, intensive conditioning and more experience watching major league pitching, or (e) whether the key to the whole deal was learning plate discipline beyond that of most mortals. In the end, I can see no objective correlative by which to measure anything.

        But the point in the context of the debate is this: Is the "changed swing" a satisfactory explanation? For you and some others, perhaps. But I suggest that for those who've already made a judgment of "juiced" based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no satisfactory explanation that does not involve the use of steroids, HGH or some other as-yet-unknown (to us) chemicals.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by west coast orange and black
          sandlot: (1) enlargement of his physique and rapid muscle-mass gain
          bonds has employed the very best nutrition and diet experts for years. he also radically changed his workout regimen, exacting great results.

          (2) significantly enhanced performance as measured by production
          this seems to be arrived at by going backwards.
          if not for the production, would it still be claimed that bonds used?

          (3) high-level performance at an age when most players evidence a decline
          remarkable achievements not easily explained. but i kinda look at this claim as i do sprinters:
          it is not necessarily the fastest who wins, but the one who slows the slowest.

          (4) admitted use of supplements, the nature of which he's unclear about but categorically asserts were not steroids
          check.

          (5) accusations by Jose Canseco, who's been right about some other players
          not sure that this happened, sandlot.

          (6) association with Balco
          nearly 700 professional athletes from at least 67 professional basketball, football, hockey and baseball teams used balco products. are they all guilty simply by association?

          (7) statements attributed to players like Sheffield saying they'd wanted to use whatever Barry used, and were given "clear" and "cream"
          the substances allegedly used by sheffield that were tested by the feds could not be satisfactorily linked to the substances known as "the cream" and "the clear".
          it is not known what the substances used by sheffield actually were.
          it is not known what the substances used by bonds actually were.
          bonds claimed that he used legal substances only.

          (8) statements attributed to Barry to the effect that there are more important things to talk about than whether he and/or others used steroids
          that was indeed his stated opinion.

          (9) the fact that he was subpoenad to testify to a Grand Jury looking into drugs and sports
          he had a working relationship with victor conte and balco so it was a natch that he would be subpeonaed; bonds was the big fish from day one.

          (10) the [selective] leaking to the press of testimony given to the Grand Jury, but which to date has not resulted in a charge against Bonds or any other player
          either true or: the entire testimony was handed to fainaru-wada and williams but they cherry-picked it for their own purposes. (same result, though: no federal indictments.)
          i believe that the two san francisco chronicle staff reporters are still on leave from the newspaper writing their book on the balco/bonds affair.

          (11) statements made by Bonds that have indicated arrogance, disrespect for great players, possible rascism, bad taste and occasional stupidity
          true.

          (12) never having liked Bonds to begin with
          true.

          (13) the lack of any other satisfactory explanation for his late-career achievements beyond possessing amazing talent and longevity
          though unsatisfactory to many, i still hafta go with ken on this one... sorta.
          bonds not only changed his entire approach to the batter's box over the watchful eyes of bonds the senior and mays, but he also became a more dedicated bonds, a hungrier, more disciplined bonds.
          the two versions of the same man are nowhere near related, so to speak.

          ..................................

          (1) he has never failed a drug test
          true.

          (2) he's never admitted use
          true.

          (3) he's not been proven in any way to have ever used banned products
          true.

          (4) he is considered even by many critics probably the best baseball player, ever
          true.

          (5) his work ethic and exercise regime are legendary
          true.

          (6) a lot of the criticism of him seems to contain a racial component, even when that's denied
          true.

          (7) while it's agreed that steroid use might aid short-term healing and recovery, there is no concrete scientific proof that they will help anyone to perform at a level beyond the talent that he or she naturally possesses
          true. no quantifying evidence has ever been produced.

          (8) in America, a person -- even Barry Bonds -- has a Constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty
          true.

          What have I left out?
          not much, man. nearly nothing, in my book.
          Okay, point taken, I'll change #2 to read "significantly enhanced performance as indicated by production" -- and of course, it is going backwards, as it's the marked increase in production that has raised a red flag for so many observers. If Barry's production had remained constant with his previous years' output, would we even be discussing this? He could have been mainlining WD40 and who'd know, or care?

          I'll also modify #5, as I haven't read Canseco's book, and he may not have pointed to Barry by name. However, Canseco made a string of accusations and innuendos, based on published reports and interviews, creating a furor into which Bonds and other athletes have been drawn. That Canseco has apparently been right about some charges has made it worse for anyone implicated, because the public assumption will largely be one of guilt. So make that read "accusations made by Jose Canseco against other ballplayers, some subsequently shown to be true, which has served to support the assumption that Bonds is also 'juiced'"


          Guilt by association is the point of #6 and, yes, any and all athletes publicly linked to Balco would stand to suffer by the connection. Being guilty and being guilty by association are different things, but it's a distinction lost on many folks. That Bonds had some sort of close working relationship with Balco just serves to make a bad situation worse.
          Last edited by sandlot; 01-10-2006, 03:13 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Good thread guys!

            Comment


            • #36
              sandlot: I'll change #2 to read "significantly enhanced performance as indicated by production"
              i go along with this.

              If Barry's production had remained contact with his previous years' output... who'd know, or care?
              uh, pretty much no one, sandlot; yer right.

              That Canseco has apparently been right about some charges... So make that read "accusations made by Jose Canseco against other ballplayers, some subsequently shown to be true, which has served to support the assumption that Bonds is also 'juiced'"
              no argument here.

              Being guilty and being guilty by association are different things, but it's a distinction lost on many folks. That Bonds had some sort of close working relationship with Balco just serves to make a bad situation worse.
              agreed, sandlot.
              "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

              Comment


              • #37
                sandlot: To be clear, I'm not making the case for or against, simply summarizing...
                and an excellant summarization it is.

                But we have no idea (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)... In the end, I can see no objective correlative by which to measure anything.
                so very true, sandlot. which is pretty much why my stance remains "i do not know".

                Is the "changed swing" a satisfactory explanation?
                the swing itself does not wholly explain. but to me, bonds' somewhat radical departure from what were his ideas in the batting box to what they became, his changed outlook of his mentors, the changes in his regimen and diet and overall way of life, his markedly different take on his career and achievements and standing in the game, and his now very clear focus on what he wants to accomplish occurred at approximatley the same time, and are not independent of each other. together they form bonds' gameplan.
                i believe them to be inseparable; a chain is as strong as its weakest link.

                to me, these tethered factors right now are a satisfactory explanation. should more information become available then perhaps i could better decide if he used or not.

                I suggest that for those who've already made a judgment of "juiced" based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no satisfactory explanation that does not involve the use of steroids, HGH or some other as-yet-unknown (to us) chemicals.
                agreed.
                "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by sandlot
                  To be clear, I'm not making the case for or against, simply summarizing what I recall, and putting it out there for comment, correction, clarification or whatever. As for #13, the Swing Factor: Yes, he changed the swing, just as Tiger Woods changed his (evidence of steroids in golf?), and this no doubt affected his performance. But we have no idea (a) how the performance was affected, (b) what his performance would have been had he not made those adjustments, or (c) whether he was using PEDs at the same time, or (d) if he was using PEDS, what effects if any would hypothetically have been achieved by the complex and complicated combination/interaction of PEDS, changed swing, physical alteration, superb coaching, intensive conditioning and more experience watching major league pitching, or (e) whether the key to the whole deal was learning plate discipline beyond that of most mortals. In the end, I can see no objective correlative by which to measure anything.

                  But the point in the context of the debate is this: Is the "changed swing" a satisfactory explanation? For you and some others, perhaps. But I suggest that for those who've already made a judgment of "juiced" based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no satisfactory explanation that does not involve the use of steroids, HGH or some other as-yet-unknown (to us) chemicals.
                  I thought I made it clear that I didn't necessarily think the swing change by itself was the reason for the increase in numbers. But I do think it was part of the equation, maybe more of an element than you do. But my point was that you didn't see any reason for the increase other than PED's, and I gave you two reasons.

                  KH14
                  “Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I agree, WCOB, there has been no definite proof from either side on the question of whether or not Barry Bonds used performance enhancing drugs.

                    It seems one of the main exhibits produced by the people that believe he did use the drugs are his statistics, specifically the Home Run numbers. Yes, from 2000 to 2004 he averaged an astounding 8.22 AB/HR (2,122 AB, 258 HR). And from 1993 (first year with SF) until 1999 he had 269 HR in 3,392 AB, or 12.61 AB/HR. Pretty damning evidence to some. There's only one problem with those stats: That horrible ballpark he played in from 1993 to 1999. I don't know exactly how much it did, but there's no question that the swirling winds at the Stick took many a HR away from probably every player that hit there. How many times have you heard, "How many HRs would Willie Mays, McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, etc. have if they didn't play at Candlestick?"

                    To give you an idea, if you translate his AB/HR from his PBP days to the Candlestick AB numbers, he would have almost 150 more HR than he actually does. That means almost 860.

                    Just something to think about.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      If you are going to take the position that Bonds is a wronged man, then your position must be testable for it to be rational. For your position to be testable, you should be able to answer this question: "What would convince me that Barry Bonds did take steroids?" If your answer is "Nothing," then your position is not testable and you are not being rational. In effect, you are expressing faith in Bonds, and faith is not the result of reason. Similarly, the fans who oppose Bonds should be able to answer this question: "What will convince me that Bonds is innocent?" If the answer is "Nothing," then that position is not testable either. If each side can answer these questions with specifics that are testable, then the conversation can continue civilly, and both sides might learn something.

                      Also, if the purpose of this thread is to learn something about Barry Bonds, then it should not exclude fans who dislike Barry Bonds. It should not exclude anybody. Why do you even bother? I asume you bother because it annoys you as Giant fans when Barry Bonds is attacked, but if you wish to defend him, then you have to deal with the opposing views.
                      Last edited by donzblock; 01-08-2006, 07:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The problem is Donz that a lot of the Anti-Barry people think he's used for the wrong reason...mostly because they dislike him as a person and by extrapolation he's then a user. Or because of his hat size or the number he wears . Sure, I understand there is more to it than that, but it starts with how people perceive Barry. For example, Roger Clemens is beloved in Baseball, so how come nobody is mentioning about how he's doing this well at his advanced age that no one else has ever done? Why does he skate on the PED issue? Only reason I can think of is that Roger is well liked. And could we say the same of A-Rod?

                        Most Giants fans I know take the same stance, we don't know what Barry's done or not done. I can be convinced of Barry's usage of PED's, but there better something more substantial than his hat size.

                        KH14
                        “Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          What would convince you that Barry has used?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            re #57

                            this thread has not and does not exclude anyone. giantsalltheway's initial question has nothing to do with exclusion; it has to do with the notion of "why bother".

                            no reasonable person can rightly claim that the giants forum has excluded opposing views.
                            "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              re #59

                              many/most of those who state matter-of-factly that bonds have depended upon various types of evidence and resources. some of the evidence and reasons offered have been flat-out debunked, while some of what remains is outrageously ridiculous.

                              there has been, however, anecdotal evidence that can lead one to believe that bonds used. but it seems to me that so far, a conclusion of "bonds used" occurs only when someone would reach that same conclusion even without discovering any of such evidence or information.

                              what would make me believe that bonds used is information/evidence that would lead any reasonable person, based on the information/evidence presented, to conclude that bonds used.

                              so, yeah, a positive test would do it quite nicely, certainly.
                              but so would a presentation of information/evidence that solidly refutes reasonable information/evidence that is controvertible.

                              so far, i simply have not seen it.
                              "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by giantsalltheway16
                                TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF:

                                I don't know about you guys, but it annoys me so much to see all of the Barry-haters badmouthing him and not calming down and listening to reason (at least that's the way I see it). Do any of you have any suggestions for dealing with those posts? Maybe try to ignore them or something?
                                When someone begins a thread with "TO THE GIANTS FANS, AND GIANTS FANS ALONE, ON BBF," that person is trying to exclude quite a few people, specifically the people he is complaining about. However, the pro-Bonds people will be able to make a stronger argument if they do so in an open forum, and fortunately this forum has been open.

                                The thread starter's intention bothered me; the reality has been freedom of speech. A bad moderator would have excluded certain posts on the grounds that they came from non-Giants fans. Obviously, that has not been the case here, and I'm not complaining.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X