OT: What To Think of Barry Bonds Now?

[Huckleberry]

By the way, when I said "confirmed" earlier, it was of course more hearsay.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Vince

Dola - looking at him with skepticism and being certain of the fact that he did steroids are two very different things.

Terming it a witch hunt is a bit much.

[Ksyrup]

We went through this ad nauseum in another thread a few months ago...

[rkmsuf]

would this be ad ad nauseum then?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Terming it a witch hunt is a bit much.

But I saw him float in water!

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We went through this ad nauseum in another thread a few months ago...

But not with grand jury testimony that he received steroids. Ain't it grand?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Vince

Chubby - What I'm saying then, is that you are jumping to a conclusion too quickly. Sure, all we have is circumstantial evidence so far. But you've condemned him already. Forming an opinion about him ("I think Barry Bonds did steroids," as opposed to "Barry Bonds did steroids") is all well and good...but "where there's smoke there's fire" is a condemnation that is telling me you've formed a concrete opinion based upon circumstantial evidence, which I think is wrong.

You disagree, fine. I at least have some things to back up my statement, you do not. You're (and not just you Vince) only defense is "I haven't seen evidence to make me believe he did steroids".

So if a murder trial came down witnesses saying "I saw so and so do it", then you'd vote to acquit because "well there's no hard proof"? Is this the same argument to defend the OJ verdict? "Well, I personally don't see enough evidence that he did so not guilty!" Again, reference rkmsuf's post.

Barry has to prove to me he didn't do it for me to change my mind, same with Giambi and others.

The fact that I personally haven't seen a blood test of his does not preclude me from forming an opinion. It doesn't preclude me from saying "He used steroids". I have never once said "He did and here is hard facts why".

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It's like the head thing. What documented evidence would you like? They certainly didn't measure and record his head size every year but look at the pictures. What conclusion can you draw? His head is just growing due to increased intake of helium because he's taken a side job as a balloon salesman?

Well, Bonds has to get hat measurements for his cap right? Confirmation from the manufacturer that the cap size in his orders has gone up over the years would be a start. Even then, what does it prove?

Speculation from a front office executive is still hearsay. As for looking at photos, I know enough about human psychology and photography to know that this is hardly evidence. I've looked at a number of photos of Bonds over the years, and his head looks bigger, but not grotesquely so. My head looks bigger now at 34 than it did at 22, and I can assure you I've never taken any steroids or hGH. Bonds does not appear to show the cro-magnon effects commonly noted from hGH use - exaggerated brow, etc. To me, his head just looks wider, which is fairly common as people age.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Vince

Dola - looking at him with skepticism and being certain of the fact that he did steroids are two very different things.

Bingo - my position exactly.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Well, Bonds has to get hat measurements for his cap right? Confirmation from the manufacturer that the cap size in his orders has gone up over the years would be a start. Even then, what does it prove?

Speculation from a front office executive is still hearsay. As for looking at photos, I know enough about human psychology and photography to know that this is hardly evidence. I've looked at a number of photos of Bonds over the years, and his head looks bigger, but not grotesquely so. My head looks bigger now at 34 than it did at 22, and I can assure you I've never taken any steroids or hGH. Bonds does not appear to show the cro-magnon effects commonly noted from hGH use - exaggerated brow, etc. To me, his head just looks wider, which is fairly common as people age.

This is the kind of argument I am at least looking for. While I may not agree, it at least contradicts some of the circumstantial evidence. That is all we're (those of us that think he took steroids) are asking for. We don't have to agree with what the "evidence" points to, but at least use that in your argument and not "I don't see anything concrete" which to me, is just sticking your head in the sand. Good points.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Well, Bonds has to get hat measurements for his cap right? Confirmation from the manufacturer that the cap size in his orders has gone up over the years would be a start. Even then, what does it prove?

You can spin whatever you want. Head size in and of itself to my knowledge proves nothing. Neither does muscle mass, general irritability or whatever. Do some before and afters and find 1 comparable ball player in terms of head size increase in the last 100 years. That's the same as you asking me for proof of him being on the juice.

Hey just because Johnny shows lack of motivation, decreased mental abilities, and weight gain doesn't show any proof he's hooked on weed so it's no biggie.

[Chubby]

To counteract an argument that has been brought up before...

I don't think Bonds took them to hit more homeruns, I think he took them for the recooperative affects the steroids have on his body (much like Mac and his andro) which makes him healthy and more able to use his god given ability more often and better. Steroids don't make you see the ball better but being free from the aches and pains that playing a 162 game season at 40 DOES let you concentrate more and hit better since you're playing at a higher level of your ability.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

But I saw him float in water!



But not with grand jury testimony that he received steroids. Ain't it grand?

Unconfirmed, second-hand, from someone who has a reason to deflect the flashlight staring straight in his face. Sure.

That might be his true testimony, but even if it is, that's a long way rom saying that his testimony is credible.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You disagree, fine. I at least have some things to back up my statement, you do not. You're (and not just you Vince) only defense is "I haven't seen evidence to make me believe he did steroids".

So if a murder trial came down witnesses saying "I saw so and so do it", then you'd vote to acquit because "well there's no hard proof"? Is this the same argument to defend the OJ verdict? "Well, I personally don't see enough evidence that he did so not guilty!" Again, reference rkmsuf's post.

Barry has to prove to me he didn't do it for me to change my mind, same with Giambi and others.

The fact that I personally haven't seen a blood test of his does not preclude me from forming an opinion. It doesn't preclude me from saying "He used steroids". I have never once said "He did and here is hard facts why".

It might be semantics, because I think you just aren't articulating it like you want to...but my defense is it hasn't been proven to me that he has done steroids, not that I don't believe he has. I pointed out in my last post that I think there's a very good chance he has done steroids of some type.

Chubby, the point is that the things you are 'backing up your statement' with are circumstantial...they might be completely irrelevant. If there was a murder case, and all I had was circumstantial evidence, even blindly compelling circumstantial evidence, in good conscience I could not convict someone. I'm not saying it would be easy for me to do so...but that's the way it works. The whole point is innocent until proven guilty...you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, which is (in my opinion) wrong.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Unconfirmed, second-hand, from someone who has a reason to deflect the flashlight staring straight in his face. Sure.

That might be his true testimony, but even if it is, that's a long way rom saying that his testimony is credible.

Why? This is a head in the sand argument. So if Conte stands up there and says he sold illegal steroids to Bonds are you going to come back with "Doesn't make it credible testimony. He might have not used them but still bought them".

At least take some of the evidence and show why you don't think it points to him using like dawgfan did otherwise you give off the appearance of just blindly avoiding the evidence.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Terming it a witch hunt is a bit much.

Well look at it this way. What is a witch hunt? A group of people that have a desire to pin something on someone to watch them go down. The only difference is that we're pretty certain that witches don't actually exist. We aren't as certain that Bonds didn't do it...but a lot of the people that are fighting for and arguing that he DID do it are doing so because they don't like him...they want to see him go down.

Though I don't think it's an entirely accurate statement, it's not too far from the truth, either.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why? This is a head in the sand argument. So if Conte stands up there and says he sold illegal steroids to Bonds are you going to come back with "Doesn't make it credible testimony. He might have not used them but still bought them".

At least take some of the evidence and show why you don't think it points to him using like dawgfan did otherwise you give off the appearance of just blindly avoiding the evidence.

Chubby, what if he did give the steroids to Bonds, and Bonds really didn't use them? I don't think he's arguing whether or not Bonds is innocent or guilty, just showing that the evidence is indeed circumstantial.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Vince

It might be semantics, because I think you just aren't articulating it like you want to...but my defense is it hasn't been proven to me that he has done steroids, not that I don't believe he has. I pointed out in my last post that I think there's a very good chance he has done steroids of some type.

Chubby, the point is that the things you are 'backing up your statement' with are circumstantial...they might be completely irrelevant. If there was a murder case, and all I had was circumstantial evidence, even blindly compelling circumstantial evidence, in good conscience I could not convict someone. I'm not saying it would be easy for me to do so...but that's the way it works. The whole point is innocent until proven guilty...you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, which is (in my opinion) wrong.

Vince, the point is you have nothing 'backing up your statement' whatsoever.

Just because there isn't the "Vince standard of proof" does not mean I can't form my own opinion of things. He did steroids, that's my belief. The fact that there isn't enough evidence for you to share that belief is not going to change mine.

Again, at least try and show why things don't point to him using if you want to argue against him taking steroids. Otherwise, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. This might as well be a religion thread when discussing this with you.

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why? This is a head in the sand argument. So if Conte stands up there and says he sold illegal steroids to Bonds are you going to come back with "Doesn't make it credible testimony. He might have not used them but still bought them".

At least take some of the evidence and show why you don't think it points to him using like dawgfan did otherwise you give off the appearance of just blindly avoiding the evidence.

I like how you attack his argument (which, by the way, does exactly what you ask him to do in your second paragraph) by presenting a hypothetical situation and assuming his response. You really proved your point by doing this.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Vince

Chubby, what if he did give the steroids to Bonds, and Bonds really didn't use them? I don't think he's arguing whether or not Bonds is innocent or guilty, just showing that the evidence is indeed circumstantial.

Then this further supports rkmsuf's argument of some people will not accept anything as "proof" that he took them.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

You can spin whatever you want. Head size in and of itself to my knowledge proves nothing. Neither does muscle mass, general irritability or whatever. Do some before and afters and find 1 comparable ball player in terms of head size increase in the last 100 years. That's the same as you asking me for proof of him being on the juice.

Hey just because Johnny shows lack of motivation, decreased mental abilities, and weight gain doesn't show any proof he's hooked on weed so it's no biggie.

Look, there are valid explanations for every bit of circumstantial evidence brought up against Bonds.

Has Bonds' head increased in size? Probably. Most people experience an increase in their head size as they age. Whether or not Bonds' has experience unusual head size growth, and more importantly has shown particular kinds of head size growth common to hGH users is open to speculation. Those that are convinced Bonds is juiced are far more likely to see any changes in Bonds' head size as proof, and perhaps exaggerate the extent to which his head may have grown.

Is Bonds physically much bigger than he used to be? No question. Is it possible to be as big as he is at his age and with such a remarkable difference from his younger days without using illegal performance enhancers? Yes it is. In the SF paper article linked here a while back they discussed this and displayed pictures of natural bodybuilders that are around the same age as Bonds and they are much more massive. It's well-known that Bonds switched from speed-training to mass-building training in his early to mid 30's, which would explain the rapid change in his physique. His workout routines have been well-documented.

Bonds has been frequently mentioned in the BALCO case - this is the most damning bit of circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion is the reason the rumors have gone from simply speculation to credible. Still, all we've seen so far is hearsay, and from what I've seen the hearsay can be countered with reasonable explanations for why information might be false.

If this were a trial on whether Bonds has used illegal supplements and this was all the evidence used to prosecute him, I'd find him not-guilty - the evidence simply doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. There are too many credible counter-arguments to the circumstantial evidence given to decisively conclude at this point that he must have used/is still using illegal supplements. The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Vince

The whole point is innocent until proven guilty...you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, which is (in my opinion) wrong.

Why? Are we the jurors for his trial? The "whole point" of innocent until proven guilty is in a court of law, not the court of public opinion, my opinion, your opinion, or his opinion.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

I like how you attack his argument (which, by the way, does exactly what you ask him to do in your second paragraph) by presenting a hypothetical situation and assuming his response. You really proved your point by doing this.

Have you read this thread? dawgfan's response above was a good argument for why he thinks Bonds may not have taken steroids. I don't agree, but it's a valid argument. That's all I'm asking for. Simply saying "I haven't seen anything to prove to me he took them" is not a valid argument to me. As Vince proved for me, some people will spin anything to say "It doesn't prove he toook them".

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Again, at least try and show why things don't point to him using if you want to argue against him taking steroids.

I would think that the fact that right now, THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE POINTING AT HIM USING would be good enough, but that's just me. How are we supposed to explain something that doesn't exist?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

LOL. I suppose to be sure you would need a seamless video showing the steroids being manufactured, bottled, shipped, delivered to Bonds' supplier, being sold directly to Barry Bonds, his intake of the steroids, and a simultaneously occurring DNA test proving that the man on the video is, in fact, Barry Bonds.

Otherwise there's an explanation.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Look, there are valid explanations for every bit of circumstantial evidence brought up against Bonds.

Has Bonds' head increased in size? Probably. Most people experience an increase in their head size as they age. Whether or not Bonds' has experience unusual head size growth, and more importantly has shown particular kinds of head size growth common to hGH users is open to speculation. Those that are convinced Bonds is juiced are far more likely to see any changes in Bonds' head size as proof, and perhaps exaggerate the extent to which his head may have grown.

Is Bonds physically much bigger than he used to be? No question. Is it possible to be as big as he is at his age and with such a remarkable difference from his younger days without using illegal performance enhancers? Yes it is. In the SF paper article linked here a while back they discussed this and displayed pictures of natural bodybuilders that are around the same age as Bonds and they are much more massive. It's well-known that Bonds switched from speed-training to mass-building training in his early to mid 30's, which would explain the rapid change in his physique. His workout routines have been well-documented.

Bonds has been frequently mentioned in the BALCO case - this is the most damning bit of circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion is the reason the rumors have gone from simply speculation to credible. Still, all we've seen so far is hearsay, and from what I've seen the hearsay can be countered with reasonable explanations for why information might be false.

If this were a trial on whether Bonds has used illegal supplements and this was all the evidence used to prosecute him, I'd find him not-guilty - the evidence simply doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. There are too many credible counter-arguments to the circumstantial evidence given to decisively conclude at this point that he must have used/is still using illegal supplements. The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

thank you. again, this is all I'm asking for (and I assume the same with others).

I agree, that if this was everything and I was on the jury I'd have to find not guilty but that isn't the case. I don't have to use the same standards as a jury when forming my opinion. As huckleberry said, some people are trying to say that the court of public opinion has the same standards of proof that a court of law has, it does not.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Vince

Well look at it this way. What is a witch hunt? A group of people that have a desire to pin something on someone to watch them go down. The only difference is that we're pretty certain that witches don't actually exist. We aren't as certain that Bonds didn't do it...but a lot of the people that are fighting for and arguing that he DID do it are doing so because they don't like him...they want to see him go down.

Though I don't think it's an entirely accurate statement, it's not too far from the truth, either.

So then am I to assume that if this ends up in federal court that the US Government "wants to see him go down"?

This is a legitimate investigation that happens to involve high profile athletes. Terming it a witch hunt is a way for "skeptics" to devalue the importance of truth. Bonds is a high profile guy but not the only one accused.

I have no pity for any of them. They held all the cards and refused to prove they were clean. You can argue whether they should or shouldn't have to prove it but they held the hammer. Now they don't so too bad for them.

Bonds et all should thank their own players association and baseball. They all have themselves to blame for this scrutiny.

[ISiddiqui]

n/m

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Then this further supports rkmsuf's argument of some people will not accept anything as "proof" that he took them.

Why? Here's a scenario for you - Conte and Bonds have been friends for a while right, boyhood friends even (if I remember correctly)? Let's say Conte was pushing Bonds to use his stuff. Bonds didn't want to, but eventually gave in and let Conte give him the stuff just to satisfy his buddy, but he didn't actually take them. That way he can know he's clean if he's ever tested, and his buddy is able to sell his stuff to other athletes by name-dropping Bonds as a user.

Is that not plausible?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Look, there are valid explanations for every bit of circumstantial evidence brought up against Bonds.

Has Bonds' head increased in size? Probably. Most people experience an increase in their head size as they age. Whether or not Bonds' has experience unusual head size growth, and more importantly has shown particular kinds of head size growth common to hGH users is open to speculation. Those that are convinced Bonds is juiced are far more likely to see any changes in Bonds' head size as proof, and perhaps exaggerate the extent to which his head may have grown.

Is Bonds physically much bigger than he used to be? No question. Is it possible to be as big as he is at his age and with such a remarkable difference from his younger days without using illegal performance enhancers? Yes it is. In the SF paper article linked here a while back they discussed this and displayed pictures of natural bodybuilders that are around the same age as Bonds and they are much more massive. It's well-known that Bonds switched from speed-training to mass-building training in his early to mid 30's, which would explain the rapid change in his physique. His workout routines have been well-documented.

Bonds has been frequently mentioned in the BALCO case - this is the most damning bit of circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion is the reason the rumors have gone from simply speculation to credible. Still, all we've seen so far is hearsay, and from what I've seen the hearsay can be countered with reasonable explanations for why information might be false.

If this were a trial on whether Bonds has used illegal supplements and this was all the evidence used to prosecute him, I'd find him not-guilty - the evidence simply doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. There are too many credible counter-arguments to the circumstantial evidence given to decisively conclude at this point that he must have used/is still using illegal supplements. The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

that's all well and good and 10 yrs ago a similar trial played out.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

I would think that the fact that right now, THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE POINTING AT HIM USING would be good enough, but that's just me. How are we supposed to explain something that doesn't exist?

I disagree, there is no concrete evidence that we are privy too. That does not mean that the courts don't have any.

Again, I don't have to use the same standard of guilt as a courtroom does. To me, there's enough evidence (circumstantial it may be) to say to me that he took 'roids.

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Have you read this thread? dawgfan's response above was a good argument for why he thinks Bonds may not have taken steroids. I don't agree, but it's a valid argument. That's all I'm asking for. Simply saying "I haven't seen anything to prove to me he took them" is not a valid argument to me. As Vince proved for me, some people will spin anything to say "It doesn't prove he toook them".

So, basically, not accepting circumstancial evidence as the be-all, end-all proof that something has happened means that we're not supporting our side well enough? Why do I have to defend my not accepting circumstancial evidence? Doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" DEMAND that we not accept circumstancial evidence?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

LOL. I suppose to be sure you would need a seamless video showing the steroids being manufactured, bottled, shipped, delivered to Bonds' supplier, being sold directly to Barry Bonds, his intake of the steroids, and a simultaneously occurring DNA test proving that the man on the video is, in fact, Barry Bonds.

Otherwise there's an explanation.

Just cuz he had them doesn't mean he took them right?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

Doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" DEMAND that we not accept circumstancial evidence?

Yes, it does. BUT WE ARE NOT ON A JURY.

edit - By the way, it is not illegal or wrong for a jury to convict on circumstantial evidence. There is a point where there is so much evidence that, even though it is all circumstantial, no reasonable interpretation would leave the accused not guilty. Hence no reasonable doubt.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Why? Here's a scenario for you - Conte and Bonds have been friends for a while right, boyhood friends even (if I remember correctly)? Let's say Conte was pushing Bonds to use his stuff. Bonds didn't want to, but eventually gave in and let Conte give him the stuff just to satisfy his buddy, but he didn't actually take them. That way he can know he's clean if he's ever tested, and his buddy is able to sell his stuff to other athletes by name-dropping Bonds as a user.

Is that not plausible?

If a test of Bonds' comes back positive, is it not plausible that someone switched samples to frame Bonds?

Again, if you want to insist on actually being there to see him shoot it in his ass yourself to be convinced that he took them then fine. Some of us don't need that to think he did it.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Vince, the point is you have nothing 'backing up your statement' whatsoever.

Just because there isn't the "Vince standard of proof" does not mean I can't form my own opinion of things. He did steroids, that's my belief. The fact that there isn't enough evidence for you to share that belief is not going to change mine.

Again, at least try and show why things don't point to him using if you want to argue against him taking steroids. Otherwise, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. This might as well be a religion thread when discussing this with you.

The point of my arguments has been this, summed up in one statement:

Circumstantial evidence does not equal proof.

I haven't been trying to prove that Bonds hasn't done steroids. Proving that Bonds hasn't done steroids is about as possible right now as proving that he has. Which is to say, it isn't possible (well, more accurately...it hasn't been done). I'd like to know how I've 'spun' something? I've stated my beliefs, based upon the evidence available. Kind of like you have.

As for Huckleberry, I've never stated that you have to agree with what I'm saying...just trying to show where I'm coming from...WHY I think that Chubby is wrong.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

So then am I to assume that if this ends up in federal court that the US Government "wants to see him go down"?

This is a legitimate investigation that happens to involve high profile athletes. Terming it a witch hunt is a way for "skeptics" to devalue the importance of truth. Bonds is a high profile guy but not the only one accused.

I have no pity for any of them. They held all the cards and refused to prove they were clean. You can argue whether they should or shouldn't have to prove it but they held the hammer. Now they don't so too bad for them.

Bonds et all should thank their own players association and baseball. They all have themselves to blame for this scrutiny.

When I used the term 'witch-hunt' it wasn't in reference to the BALCO case, it was the fact that so many people really dislike Bonds and as such are eager to jump on the "He uses steroids" bandwagon.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

So, basically, not accepting circumstancial evidence as the be-all, end-all proof that something has happened means that we're not supporting our side well enough? Why do I have to defend my not accepting circumstancial evidence? Doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" DEMAND that we not accept circumstancial evidence?

That's the only evidence we have, how many times do I have to say it? you won't even counter the circumstantial evidence, you just blindly stick your fingers in your ears and say "He didn't do it! He didn't do it!"

Again, we're not on a jury.

[Huckleberry]

I have added a statement to address the circumstantial evidence line of reasoning in an above post.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Vince

The point of my arguments has been this, summed up in one statement:

Circumstantial evidence does not equal proof.

I haven't been trying to prove that Bonds hasn't done steroids. Proving that Bonds hasn't done steroids is about as possible right now as proving that he has. Which is to say, it isn't possible (well, more accurately...it hasn't been done). I'd like to know how I've 'spun' something? I've stated my beliefs, based upon the evidence available. Kind of like you have.

As for Huckleberry, I've never stated that you have to agree with what I'm saying...just trying to show where I'm coming from...WHY I think that Chubby is wrong.

It doesn't have to, I'm not on the jury.

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Yes, it does. BUT WE ARE NOT ON A JURY.

edit - By the way, it is not illegal or wrong for a jury to convict on circumstantial evidence. There is a point where there is so much evidence that, even though it is all circumstantial, no reasonable interpretation would leave the accused not guilty. Hence no reasonable doubt.

REALLY? NO SHIT?

I don't think anyone's attacking Chubby for having the opinion that Bonds has for sure done steroids. What we are attacking is his follow-up attitude of, "I don't see how anyone can think he hasn't done steroids." We're pointing out that since there is no concrete proof that he has in fact done steroids, that it's plausible that someone could think he hasn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

If a test of Bonds' comes back positive, is it not plausible that someone switched samples to frame Bonds?

Again, if you want to insist on actually being there to see him shoot it in his ass yourself to be convinced that he took them then fine. Some of us don't need that to think he did it.

I think the scenario I outlined is far more plausible than trying to explain away a positive urine test. As I said, if a drug test for illegal performance enhancers came back positive on Bonds that's all I need in addition to all the other circumstantial evidence to consider him guilty. I'm not going to pull an OJ supporter "He was framed" kind of argument...

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

When I used the term 'witch-hunt' it wasn't in reference to the BALCO case, it was the fact that so many people really dislike Bonds and as such are eager to jump on the "He uses steroids" bandwagon.

This may be why it gets so much media attention to a degree but I don't think that the average fan hates him so much that they want to see him busted for something.

I don't hate Bonds. I think he can be an ass, but who isn't sometimes? To me, as I've stated, all the little things add up to a big thing to me.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

So then am I to assume that if this ends up in federal court that the US Government "wants to see him go down"?

If this ends up in court is the hinge of this argument. It's not in court now. So basically, the allegations against Bonds are by people that have a motive to put them there. So far, the only 'evidence' is circumstantial...which would indicate to me that the people making claims based upon something that hasn't been proven probably have an axe to grind.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

When I used the term 'witch-hunt' it wasn't in reference to the BALCO case, it was the fact that so many people really dislike Bonds and as such are eager to jump on the "He uses steroids" bandwagon.

I'll agree that he hasn't endeared himself to the public but that's his doing. It's no surprise people are eager for misfortune to befall him. That's just a funtion of him and not really the steriod issue. I'm sure there are many people that would love to see him plunked by a fast ball or fall down the dugout steps.

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by Chubby

That's the only evidence we have, how many times do I have to say it? you won't even counter the circumstantial evidence, you just blindly stick your fingers in your ears and say "He didn't do it! He didn't do it!"

Again, we're not on a jury.

You are a master of reading into people's posts. Not once have I said what I believe. Again, I'm simply saying that because there is no proof (at this point) that Bonds has done steroids, of course people can have the opinion that he has not.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Chubby

That's the only evidence we have, how many times do I have to say it? you won't even counter the circumstantial evidence, you just blindly stick your fingers in your ears and say "He didn't do it! He didn't do it!"

Again, we're not on a jury.

Gee, how many times does it have to be said before you get it?

NO ONE is claiming he definitely didn't do steroids.

Some of us are simply reasonable enough not to jump to conclusions.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Vince

If this ends up in court is the hinge of this argument. It's not in court now. So basically, the allegations against Bonds are by people that have a motive to put them there. So far, the only 'evidence' is circumstantial...which would indicate to me that the people making claims based upon something that hasn't been proven probably have an axe to grind.

He's no different than other superstars. There are always those who want to knock off #1. In this case there appears to be ammunition.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

REALLY? NO SHIT?

I don't think anyone's attacking Chubby for having the opinion that Bonds has for sure done steroids. What we are attacking is his follow-up attitude of, "I don't see how anyone can think he hasn't done steroids." We're pointing out that since there is no concrete proof that he has in fact done steroids, that it's plausible that someone could think he hasn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Why is it so hard to make that argument without pulling out the "innocent until proven guilty" red herring?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

REALLY? NO SHIT?

I don't think anyone's attacking Chubby for having the opinion that Bonds has for sure done steroids. What we are attacking is his follow-up attitude of, "I don't see how anyone can think he hasn't done steroids." We're pointing out that since there is no concrete proof that he has in fact done steroids, that it's plausible that someone could think he hasn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Where have I said that? Quote it for me.

I've said numerous times that dawgfan has given good arguments for why the evidence may not mean Bonds took steroids. I've said I can see how those arguments can be made but I don't agree with them. I've never said "You can't possibly think that."

Sheesh, I posted that Giants fans shouldn't look at the testimony and eveyrone jumps down my throat (big shock there)

[Vince]

Appears to be...