Bonds homerun quest

dragon1952

Well, it's just a matter of time now as he is now only 12 away. What cracks me up is this poll on www.sportsnetwork.com that asks when Bonds will break the record. I voted 'June' a few homers ago but almost 17% vote that he will never break the record! :rolleyes: I'm assuming that they are not being serious
Here's the voting so far and as long as this has been up (at least a week) I'm assuming this is as a result of thousands of votes.

When will Barry Bonds break the all-time home run record?
May 4.44%
June 27.41%
July 32.89%
August 14.67%
September 3.70%
Won't break it 16.89%

I personally think that, yeah he hasn't gone out of his way to ingratiate himself to the press or fans, but I also think he's got a bad rap as a result of it. Anyone who doesn't kiss **** to the press gets nothing but bad publicity regardless of the actual reality. And of course too many believe everything that comes out in writing. Bottom line is, I don't think he's nearly as bad a guy as they would like us to believe and the amount of crap he's had to put up with from the press, I don't blame him for the way he treats them.
I've also got a ton of his rookie cards So go Barry!!!

Demiurge

Illegitimate either way. Eff him.

Toxis

shoot up a lil more juice... aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh PITCH IT!

Early B.

Demiurge wrote: »

Illegitimate either way. Eff him.

Yep. He coudn't do it without drugs. Hank Aaron isn't impressed.

Rivrrat

17% vote that he will never break the record! I'm assuming that they are not being serious

That's the 17% that thinks he'll get indicted on perjury charges before he breaks the record.

I know I'd like to see that happen.

I-SIG

I wish someone would just Nancy Kerrigan his already bad knee!

Wes

dragon1952

You know, he probably juiced for a couple years at best. Probably started worrying about prolonging his career and overcoming injuries. People make it sound like he juiced his whole career. Also, although he probably did use for awhile, nothing has actually been proven. And as far as any other player in history goes, the fact is that we don't know for sure what they may or may not have done. Remember 'greenies' :rolleyes: Anyway so say he gets 120 or so homers during his possible juicing years. All of a sudden the other 600+ are ****? :rolleyes:

Shizelbs

Who cares. No one will seriously honor his 'accomplishments'

dragon1952

I disagree. Many may not but certainly not 'no one'. I guess we'll soon see though Bottom line, regardless of what he may have done for a short time, he's still one of the greatest ballplayers ever. Just like Pete Rose.
I think it's sad neither one gets more respect. And what makes me really sick is 90% of it is media driven. Most people, notice I didn't say everyone, wouldn't have given a rat's **** if their opinions hadn't been molded by what they read and hear.

jdhdiggs

I put the steroid thing on the MLB so I say it is legit. If it wasn't illegal and they weren't testing for it then it's fair game. I mean you can put asterisk's by most, if not all, of baseball's great records.

Ruth: Non-integrated league
Aaron: Ptiching mound was lowered
etc, etc..

jflail2

I would agree with jdhdiggs on this one. The league didn't test for it, God knows how many players were using (surely it can't just be Giambi and Bonds), and in the end there is always some difference between generations.

How many players in the late 60's and 70s were using amphetamines/speed on a regular basis? I'd venture more than we would expect.

If you're going to asterisk Barry's record, then you need to asterisk pretty much everything that happened after the late 60's...

Don't get me wrong, he is literally my least favorite player in baseball, but its not fair to hold him to a higher standard than everyone else that has played over the last 30-40 years b/c he is on the verge of breaking Aaron's record.

Demiurge

jflail2 wrote: »

I would agree with jdhdiggs on this one. The league didn't test for it, God knows how many players were using (surely it can't just be Giambi and Bonds), and in the end there is always some difference between generations.

How many players in the late 60's and 70s were using amphetamines/speed on a regular basis? I'd venture more than we would expect.

If you're going to asterisk Barry's record, then you need to asterisk pretty much everything that happened after the late 60's...

Don't get me wrong, he is literally my least favorite player in baseball, but its not fair to hold him to a higher standard than everyone else that has played over the last 30-40 years b/c he is on the verge of breaking Aaron's record.

God knows how many players weren't using it. They get they shaft for being honest and upstanding individuals? Nice standard.

Bonds' likely record is a sham. He's undeserving.

BTW, how on earth can that be put on the MLB? Last I checked, the MLB wasn't it's own country. Steroids are illegal, period.

jdhdiggs

For you and I they are illegal, but you can get prescriptions for them (elite atheletes have no problems getting a Dr. to do this). Also, a lot of the items "used" by Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Giambi, et al were not illegal at that time.

Again, this is baseball. Possibly the most boring sport outside of cricket. Secondly, if they got it legally (And what can't get prescribed?) and it wasn't banned from MLB, tough crap. MLB has as much to blame as the guys that did it.

I get your point about maintaining the "purity" of the records, but again, you could make those same types of arguments for past era's as well:

"Steroids Era"
"Live Ball Era"
"Amphetimines Era"
"Lowered Mound Era"
"Pre-Integration Era"

I mean, what are the real records anyway once you consider all of that?

Demiurge

There's a lot of rationalization in that post. The steroids Bonds was taking were highly illegal.

You're also making a lot of assumptions about past generations to rationalize the behavior of Barry Bonds. Why? We know Barry Bonds used steroids, and thus his likely record is a complete joke. Are you trying to suggest that Aaron was on drugs and that's how he got the record? :rolleyes:

He was called a great baseball player in another post. Have you seen his before & after? Barry Bonds was a mediocre player at best before he juiced up. The difference is night and day. The guy can hit the ball a great distance, other than that -- what's so great about him? Not a whole lot. He's a puke of a human being, one of those rare times where the media actually isn't spinning things that way -- he's actually a true blue jerk off.

Bonds is not the only one that was on the juice, and to suggest he's being personally held to a higher standard than others is absurd.

Maintaining standards matters in life and in sports. It's why it's been so hard to watch baseball lately because there has been so much cheating going on.

Once again we're blaming the group for the actions of individuals. Did asshats like Bonds taint the MLB? Definitely. Does the MLB hold some of the blame for the marks this caused their organization? Absolutely, but no way in hell can the MLB be blamed for the actions of Barry Bonds.

jdhdiggs

No, but if Aaron is playing in a juiced ball era right after the mounds are lowered, he had an advantage over people like Ruth. Of course Ruth played in an Era where blacks weren't allowed to play so the competition was less. That's all.

Here's the thing: If next year, aluminum bats were allowed by the MLB and A-Rod hit 120 homers, the next year they outlaw the bats again. Did A-Rod cheat? Did he violate the integrity of the game? I'd argue he didn't because baseball allowed it.

Steroids? The MLB knew what was going on and did nothing until after the facts. To me, if you could get a doctor to prescribe exotic, performance enhancing cocktails (making it legal from a gov perspective) and the MLB never tested or made it illegal then it is their own actions that made the HR chase legitimate.

If you want to make the argument that he didn't get a valid prescription making it legal for him to take the drugs, do you take away LT's sack records because he did cocaine? I get your point, I really do. I just have trouble with the slippery slope argument. To me, the clear line is if it was legal in the league to do it when he did it, then you can't put asterisks by the records-He played by the rules present at the time.

Mediocre player? He was a sure fire hall of famer by the early 90's.

jflail2

what's so great about him? Not a whole lot. He's a puke of a human being, one of those rare times where the media actually isn't spinning things that way -- he's actually a true blue jerk off.

I sure can't fault that logic. While we may agree to disagree on the validity of today's records, I can't argue that. He is an arrogant, steaming pile of ****, and deserves all of the negative media coverage he receives.

krabby5

dragon1952 wrote: »

I disagree. Many may not but certainly not 'no one'. I guess we'll soon see though Bottom line, regardless of what he may have done for a short time, he's still one of the greatest ballplayers ever. Just like Pete Rose.
I think it's sad neither one gets more respect. And what makes me really sick is 90% of it is media driven. Most people, notice I didn't say everyone, wouldn't have given a rat's **** if their opinions hadn't been molded by what they read and hear.

Pete Rose bet on baseball AND on his own team...he admitted it (after years of denying it)

he doesn't deserve respect...he brought this all in himself...none of it was made up..

Much worse than bonds

krabby5

jdhdiggs wrote: »

For you and I they are illegal, but you can get prescriptions for them (elite atheletes have no problems getting a Dr. to do this). Also, a lot of the items "used" by Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Giambi, et al were not illegal at that time.

Again, this is baseball. Possibly the most boring sport outside of cricket. Secondly, if they got it legally (And what can't get prescribed?) and it wasn't banned from MLB, tough crap. MLB has as much to blame as the guys that did it.

I get your point about maintaining the "purity" of the records, but again, you could make those same types of arguments for past era's as well:

"Steroids Era"
"Live Ball Era"
"Amphetimines Era"
"Lowered Mound Era"
"Pre-Integration Era"

I mean, what are the real records anyway once you consider all of that?

to each his own..I would watch baseball over pro basketball every day of the week

Demiurge

I think you're missing the point.

The MLB doesn't have the ability to allow or disallow steroids. I know we're conditioned to believe that athletes and celebrities are above the law, but they're not. You're blaming everyone else for Barry Bonds' cheating.

So what about your aluminum bat, lowered mound, etc. arguments...?

They're rules, they effect everyone playing the game.

Rules change in sports all the time.

Steroids are illegal, by law, and they effect the user first and foremost, and then they effect the team -- usually a positive.

Thus, the team, and ultimately the individual has a huge advantage over everyone else who isn't using and isn't on that team.

Not to mention Bonds also failed a test for amphetamines, so it's not like he was solely taking steroids.

Also, Bonds was a mediocre player before he juiced up. He didn't start lighting things up until around 1990 and then went into a few slumps. He wasn't considered as a shoe in for the Hall of Fame until around 2000.

That's all really beside the point, since the fact is that he's a cheater, the main issue here.

krabby5

Demiurge wrote: »

There's a lot of rationalization in that post. The steroids Bonds was taking were highly illegal.

You're also making a lot of assumptions about past generations to rationalize the behavior of Barry Bonds. Why? We know Barry Bonds used steroids, and thus his likely record is a complete joke. Are you trying to suggest that Aaron was on drugs and that's how he got the record? :rolleyes:

He was called a great baseball player in another post. Have you seen his before & after? Barry Bonds was a mediocre player at best before he juiced up. The difference is night and day. The guy can hit the ball a great distance, other than that -- what's so great about him? Not a whole lot. He's a puke of a human being, one of those rare times where the media actually isn't spinning things that way -- he's actually a true blue jerk off.

Bonds is not the only one that was on the juice, and to suggest he's being personally held to a higher standard than others is absurd.

Maintaining standards matters in life and in sports. It's why it's been so hard to watch baseball lately because there has been so much cheating going on.

Once again we're blaming the group for the actions of individuals. Did asshats like Bonds taint the MLB? Definitely. Does the MLB hold some of the blame for the marks this caused their organization? Absolutely, but no way in hell can the MLB be blamed for the actions of Barry Bonds.

not defending Barry, but he was much more than a mediocre player before he juiced..he received at least 3 MVP awards before the juice..don't feel like looking it up..don't really care if he breaks the record or not..

you said he didn't really start lighting it up until 1990? He only started in 1986-7 or so...I thought he supposedly started taking steroids in the 2000's?

jdhdiggs

If you want to say a .300 30HR 30SB guy is just average... He keeps that up for 15 years and he's in. His power numbers only exploded right after McGuire and Sosa.

Here's the thing: Did the MLB test the players? Did it ban the substances before or after this happened? If either is a "Yes" then he should be banned from the sport and his records erased.

Is it illegal to take steroids? Nope, you can get them legally (not neccessarily ethically). Hence the need for the MLB to make them banned from their game or suffer damage to the integrity of the game.

Yes Bonds did bend, if not outright break the law, as did many others. Meanwhile the MLB just sat there watching the ratings skyrocket during the home run chases year after year. Now they want to be outraged that he "cheated" by breaking rules that didn't exist? Now people want to add asterisks? I just don't get it. To me, the MLB brought this on themselves. They had to know something was going on and did nothing to stop it because it boosted ratings. They are the ones to ensure no one cheats and maintain the integrity of the game.

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote: »

If you want to say a .300 30HR 30SB guy is just average... He keeps that up for 15 years and he's in. His power numbers only exploded right after McGuire and Sosa.

Barry Bonds:

1987:



1992:



He gets bigger through the years, but 1997 is the stand-out year for Bonds on roids:



Did you want to tell us when he started cheating, or was he doing it all along? Hard to know with a cheater, but pre 1990s he was clearly a different guy. Seemed to start off as a light user and slowly progressed to becoming a heavy user.

Here's the thing: Did the MLB test the players? Did it ban the substances before or after this happened? If either is a "Yes" then he should be banned from the sport and his records erased.

It doesn't matter. The MLB makes rules for a sport, not law for a nation. Still don't understand why you're blaming the MLBs rule system for Barry Bonds' cheating.

Is it illegal to take steroids? Nope, you can get them legally (not neccessarily ethically). Hence the need for the MLB to make them banned from their game or suffer damage to the integrity of the game.

Who do you take me for? Bonds wasn't getting steroids for any legitimate health purposes, why make such a silly argument? Money will buy you lots of things, that doesn't make it legal.

Yes Bonds did bend, if not outright break the law, as did many others. Meanwhile the MLB just sat there watching the ratings skyrocket during the home run chases year after year. Now they want to be outraged that he "cheated" by breaking rules that didn't exist? Now people want to add asterisks? I just don't get it. To me, the MLB brought this on themselves. They had to know something was going on and did nothing to stop it because it boosted ratings. They are the ones to ensure no one cheats and maintain the integrity of the game.

I think I already said in an above post that the MLB takes blame for how this has tainted the sport of baseball by not doing something about it sooner. They are also under the thumb of the MLBPLA, so I'm not resting it all on them.

See, you want to blame the MLB, which is what I take from your arguments.

I blame Barry for being a cheating shitbag.

I blame all of the other participants in this illegal activity for being cheating shitbags.

I blame the MLB for letting it continue.

I blame the MLBPLA for looking out only for it's own self interests, not the integrity of the game.

With all that said, Barry Bonds is still a cheater. He rubbed The Clear on himself and injected the needles with the aid of well paid doctors. You can all point the finger at everyone else, but I'll see it for what it is -- one jackass who had to cheat in order to get ahead.

jdhdiggs

Demiurge wrote:

I blame Barry for being a cheating shitbag.

I blame all of the other participants in this illegal activity for being cheating shitbags.

I blame the MLB for letting it continue.

I blame the MLBPLA for looking out only for it's own self interests, not the integrity of the game.

With all that said, Barry Bonds is still a cheater. He rubbed The Clear on himself and injected the needles with the aid of well paid doctors. You can all point the finger at everyone else, but I'll see it for what it is -- one jackass who had to cheat in order to get ahead.

I'd agree with most of this. My only disagreement is the legality of taking steroids. As I understand the law, they are illegal because: They are dangerous when not properly used so they must be taken under medical guidence. I don't see the federal law stating that they can only be used for assisting recovery but rather that they only be used under a Doctors supervision. If that's what he was doing, it isn't "illegal". It is unethical as all hell - That is where the MLB steps in and needs to declare it's cheating, which they didn't. You say one person used it to get ahead of others. Here's the thing though, there was nothing in place to keep others from doing it either.

Back to the aluminum bat thing. If it were made legal and half the players used it and the others stuck with wooden bats, does that mean half the league cheated because the other players didn't take advantage of the system and resources that were in place?

If you break a rule that doesn't exist (but should) does that mean you cheated? I'd say that you didn't play by the spirit that the game was intended and are completely unethical but you didn't cheat.

engtaz

Nice cards

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote: »

I'd agree with most of this. My only disagreement is the legality of taking steroids. As I understand the law, they are illegal because: They are dangerous when not properly used so they must be taken under medical guidence. I don't see the federal law stating that they can only be used for assisting recovery but rather that they only be used under a Doctors supervision. If that's what he was doing, it isn't "illegal". It is unethical as all hell - That is where the MLB steps in and needs to declare it's cheating, which they didn't. You say one person used it to get ahead of others. Here's the thing though, there was nothing in place to keep others from doing it either.

That's like trying to explain what the definition of 'is' is.

You can't pay a 'doctor' to give you steroids without breaking the law. Are you trying to tell me BALCO was giving Barry roids because they believed he needed them for medical reasons? C'mon, man.....

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Back to the aluminum bat thing. If it were made legal and half the players used it and the others stuck with wooden bats, does that mean half the league cheated because the other players didn't take advantage of the system and resources that were in place?

I'm pretty sure I already addressed this.

It's a RULE set by the MLB. The NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA and every other sport changes rules all the time. Rules effect everyone, not just one person or one team like steroids do.

Aluminum bats also aren't a body modification.

You're speaking as if steroids were allowed by the MLB -- when the MLB has absolutely no authority to allow them.

If the MLB wants to allow steroids & the U.S. Government wants to make steroids OTC, then you have a completely different set of circumstances.

jdhdiggs wrote: »

If you break a rule that doesn't exist (but should) does that mean you cheated? I'd say that you didn't play by the spirit that the game was intended and are completely unethical but you didn't cheat.

He cheated, I'm sorry it's so hard to take, but he did cheat.

There's no rule in my employee handbook that says you can't smoke weed on the job or outside of work. It's still illegal and I can stil fire him for it. Unless he has a medical need for pot there's no reason for him to be on it.

Same goes for Barry.

jdhdiggs

You're speaking as if steroids were allowed by the MLB -- when the MLB has absolutely no authority to allow or disallow them.

Neither does the NFL/NHL/NBA/olympics/ and virtually every other sport, but they put it in their rulebooks and test for it. Why? Because they can be obtained (legally or illegally) and cause a competitive advantage. Baseball did not.

It is up to the individual leagues (not the government) to maintain the integrity of the sport. Your handbook thing? So what? MLB could get rid of Bonds right now under your example but they haven't... Why not? If he commited a crime and should be fired, why hasn't he? You just made a very good argument against yourself.

As I've said before: If he had a Dr. prescribing the things (for whatever reason) it isn't illegal. There are tons of legal loopholes to make this legal. (hence why bonds is still swinging a bat and Canseco isn't behind bars)

Aluminum bats would give the same advantage that taking steroids would. That's the point-if neither was outlawed by MLB and obtained legally, why would one be considered cheating and the other not? Body modification? Please... That's a weak argument- Should we outlaw weight training, Nutritionists, and supplements as well?

Also: Doesn't cheating mean breaking the rules of the game your playing? Again, if what you are doing isn't against the rules, you how can you be cheating...???

And yes, at this point I'm just trying to yank your chain.

Shizelbs

Just to clarify, and nit pick really, if you obtain a prescription from a physician, MD, ARNP, PA-C, naturopath, whatever, that you are abusing, know you have no medical need for, if some officer or court or lawyer wants to push for the finer points of the law, it can be considered illegal to be doing those activities.

dragon1952

[QUOTE=Demiurge

He gets bigger through the years, but 1997 is the stand-out year for Bonds on roids:

[/QUOTE]

I got bigger over the years too and I didn't use steroids. Weight lifting became popular and all the players bulked up. The problem with being in the gym is that you start to get hooked on the experience (the high, the results) and you start to be approached and you start to learn 'hey, this can help you get over that injury faster, etc. I would bet my **** that he didn't start doing it until at least 2001, the year of the 73, way after most of the other players started doing them. After that he dropped back to a more normal production for the next 3 years, of course they started walking him every other at bat also. The federal investigation into Balco began in 2002 so he may have used them for parts of 2 yrs at the most.
No difference between juiced ball, amphetimines, steroids as far as the legitimacy of records. Legality should not be an issue. They are all artificial enhancements and one should not be considered less trivial than the other.
As for Pete Rose, he bet on his own team to win. I can guarantee you with his competitive nature that he never bet against his team and then managed to lose. I see a huge difference there.

BTW, how on earth do you figure '97 was a standout year. Because of his size? ****, you lift for 5 yrs and see what happens. His production that year was nothing out of the ordinary for him. Infact it was 2 less than the previous year. 2001 is the only year that pops out at you.

Shizelbs

Is there anyone else out there besides me that doesn't think steroids use is nearly as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be?

The average baseball player is plenty strong enough to hit a baseball hard enough to drive it out of the park. Hell, I am. Most of us are. Its just far more important to make proper contact with the ball, at the right angle, with enough bat speed. You could be Hercules, but unless you make proper contact, you aren't going to hit many homeruns.

I'll admit that steroids will help with recovery and extend careers, which makes it a very valid argument against Mr Bonds as he is getting older and older. I'm just skeptical that the added bulk of muscle is going to be solely responsible for that many more home runs beyond what can be accounted for by additional games played.

Then again, sometimes its pretty damn apparent what can happen to players (Giambi).

AndyGwis

I skipped over most of this thread just to throw my 2 cents in. If this has already been covered, my bad.

Look, everyone loved McGuire, Sosa, etc. even though they were on roids. Also, no one mentions that just as many pitchers and positions players are on roids.

Anyway, Barry simply jumped on a bandwagon that was already going strong for years. He wanted to be the best at a game that was overrun with steroids. . . and he certainly has been the best over the past 8-10 years. I think he's a hell of an athlete and player, way more so than McGuire, Sosa, and even Hank Aaron. Barry is the best cheater in a game of cheaters. Still very impressive.

dragon1952

Shizelbs wrote: »

Is there anyone else out there besides me that doesn't think steroids use is nearly as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be?

I agree 100%. All they add is strength, which past a certain point is a diminishing attribute. They certainly aren't going to make a home run king out of even a Tony Gwynn. Or make a .250 hitter into a career .300 hitter.
Where they absolutely do come into play, as you said, is in recovery time from the day to day grind of the season, as well as from injuries. They can help to keep you strong and healthy.

Again, it goes back to the media shaping everyone's thoughts and only providing the information they believe will benefit them. They want everyone thinking the way they do about steroids. It makes the issue more "newsworthy" :rolleyes:

And as far as Bonds attitude and people's perception of him....again, we only see and hear what the media wants us to see and hear. I think most players and teammates think highly of him (except for Jeff Kent who nobody likes anyway). The media has helped to turn Bonds into what we perceive him to be. They have absolutely trashed and **** on him for years. So now when we see him in interviews, we see what he thinks of them by the way he reacts. I don't blame him.There are many, many other athletes (and other celebrities) in history that have flat out refused to deal with the media for good reason.