OT: What To Think of Barry Bonds Now?

[Swaggs]

Bonds is tearing up again this season, with 8 homers and an OPS somewhere near 2.000 right now.

Now, surely he cannot be currently using steroids under the kind of scrutiny he has recently been under.

So, if he has another amazingly historic, MVP season this year, will all the steroid allegations disappear?

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Bonds is tearing up again this season, with 8 homers and an OPS somewhere near 2.000 right now.

Now, surely he cannot be currently using steroids under the kind of scrutiny he has recently been under.

So, if he has another amazingly historic, MVP season this year, will all the steroid allegations disappear?

Who said he took them like a crack fiend smokes crack? As long as he keeps working out, he should stay strong. I think he used them for a 'boost' to an already strong body.


Todd

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Who said he took them like a crack fiend smokes crack? As long as he keeps working out, he should stay strong. I think he used them for a 'boost' to an already strong body.


Todd

He'd still shrivel up over time.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

He'd still shrivel up over time.

I don't think its been that long.


Todd

[MrBug708]

Hey, Bonds can do what he wants, the Giants still blow. Hit's .700 against the Dodgers and his team still is swept. Only this time we didn't have Kevin Elster

[Bad-example]

The Giants blow? Riiiiiight...they have finished ahead of the dodgers 7 years in a row, and when you look at the rosters it looks likely they will make it 8.

[Vince]

I wish I was looking at the same rosters you were, Bad-example.

At the same time, we can't expect the entire Giants team to slump all year. Bonds right now is the only thing we have going for us. Our SPs suck; Bonds' support sucks; our MRs suck; Herges isn't really playing well. If any of these things start to turn it around, we're a team to be reckoned with again. As it is, we're looking pretty pathetic.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

The Giants blow? Riiiiiight...they have finished ahead of the dodgers 7 years in a row, and when you look at the rosters it looks likely they will make it 8.

And what has that gotten you? I forget, who swept who? Who has the best record in the NL right now? Whose behind the Padres?

[Bad-example]

Um...well it IS early, and looking at the rosters it seems pretty clear to me that the Giants are the better team.

Looking at the dodgers roster, it is hard to see them continuing to score enough runs to win more than 75-80 games. Their pitching is thinner than last year. Expect Bradley to start showing his mental problems sometime before august. Maybe they will bring back Ricky in a deja vu desperation move.

I don't expect the Giants to go all the way this year, but a division title seems a reasonable prediction considering the competition. The dodgers look more like a team with 3rd or 4th place talent.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

And what has that gotten you? I forget, who swept who? Who has the best record in the NL right now? Whose behind the Padres?

Geeze...the dodgers win 3 games against the Giants and they think they are world beaters. Check back with me when both teams have played enough games to actually mean something.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Um...well it IS early, and looking at the rosters it seems pretty clear to me that the Giants are the better team.

I don't expect the Giants to go all the way this year, but a division title seems a reasonable prediction considering the competition. The dodgers look more like a team with 3rd or 4th place talent.

Two things. The Giants have the best hitter on each team, easy to see. Whose the next best hitter though? I mean, Marquis Grissom is batting in a key spot for the Giants and he was the Dodgers 4th OF 2 years ago. As for pitching, I do hope you are not going to sit there and tell me the Giants have a better pitching staff then the Dodgers? I mean, HELLO, Cy Young award winner?

Dodgers lose Brian Jordan, gain a mature Beltre, healthy Shawn Green, young talent in Bradley, and still have LoDuca.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I don't think its been that long.


Todd

Anyone have a picture handy of a shrivelled Jason Giambi?

SI

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Two things. The Giants have the best hitter on each team, easy to see. Whose the next best hitter though? I mean, Marquis Grissom is batting in a key spot for the Giants and he was the Dodgers 4th OF 2 years ago. As for pitching, I do hope you are not going to sit there and tell me the Giants have a better pitching staff then the Dodgers? I mean, HELLO, Cy Young award winner?

Dodgers lose Brian Jordan, gain a mature Beltre, healthy Shawn Green, young talent in Bradley, and still have LoDuca.

Wow. A guy who pitches one inning a game. He's not going to do to much for you once the amenic offense shows up, will he? Sure helped the bums last year huh? How many times were the Dodgers in 1st last year? Umm....Let me check...NONE because the Giants went wire to wire. Enjoy your time in first. I'll get back to you in September when it actually means something. 3 game sweep in SF. congrats. Do you want your World Series rings now or in the mail??

Bonds is awesome and I think he is trying to top his past 3 yrs. to prove to people that he's not on roids.

[k0ruptr]

go barry go. 6 straight games with a homer , you da man, catch ruth, then catch hank

[MrBug708]

He's not going to do to much for you once the amenic offense shows up, will he? Sure helped the bums last year huh? How many times were the Dodgers in 1st last year?

Barry certainly helped you guys win your game. A guy who bats 4 times a game, not going to help you win a World Series ring. Tell me, was Gagne the only decent pitcher on the Dodgers last year? Hear I thought we had a decent pitching staff. Silly me.

Bonds is awesome and I think he is trying to top his past 3 yrs. to prove to people that he's not on roids.

If he's not on them, why does he need to prove?

Do you want your World Series rings now or in the mail??

At least they didnt leave ours next to the Cubs and BoSox's rings....

[k0ruptr]

yawn, stop the bitching and bickering and bow to the stats of barry, and the nice fat era of gagne. the wins and losses should level out, and the giants will take the division again.

[FBPro]

"Roid-man"

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

yawn, stop the bitching and bickering and bow to the stats of barry, and the nice fat era of gagne. the wins and losses should level out, and the giants will take the division again.

So much for "here and now"

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Vince

I wish I was looking at the same rosters you were, Bad-example.

At the same time, we can't expect the entire Giants team to slump all year. Bonds right now is the only thing we have going for us. Our SPs suck; Bonds' support sucks; our MRs suck; Herges isn't really playing well. If any of these things start to turn it around, we're a team to be reckoned with again. As it is, we're looking pretty pathetic.

and that idiot of a manager who thinks Neifi leading off is a good idea, and Tucker batting 3rd (instead of Bonds)- thus making him more likely to get more AB's. Alou's stupidity is mind boggling right now. Also the GM who decided that wasting a no 1 pick on Tucker when Dustan Mohr/Hammonds/scrub could match that- sigh..

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

He'd still shrivel up over time.

A la Mark McGwire

[Vince]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Two things. The Giants have the best hitter on each team, easy to see. Whose the next best hitter though? I mean, Marquis Grissom is batting in a key spot for the Giants and he was the Dodgers 4th OF 2 years ago. As for pitching, I do hope you are not going to sit there and tell me the Giants have a better pitching staff then the Dodgers? I mean, HELLO, Cy Young award winner?

Dodgers lose Brian Jordan, gain a mature Beltre, healthy Shawn Green, young talent in Bradley, and still have LoDuca.

Well, saying that Grissom was the 4th OF for the Dodgers two years ago speaks more of the Dodgers' depth chart management woes than the Giants' lack of talent. I'm too busy to look up the stats now, but Grissom is much better than you guys gave him credit for.

You're also forgetting that we are supposed to have a healthy Durham this year, a better Alfonzo, and that Schmidt wasn't really expected to be out for the beginning of the season until recently. I'm not saying we're world-beaters...but I think we do have at least comparable talent on our team. I won't even argue the pitching staff...that's retarded. But ours is better than they are playing now for sure, and if Nen can get back to form, Herges can go back to doing what he's supposed to do...middle relief/set-up.

EDIT - I agree almost whole-heartedly with Aadik...batting Bonds fourth is absolutely retarded. And a first-rounder for Tucker was unnecessary...but Tucker does have upside, and we already know that he's at least ML 4th OF capable, which is more than most draft picks for this year.

[SackAttack]

I look at the Dodgers and I see two things:

1) A pitching staff that is pretty clearly not what it was a year ago, but still has the potential to be among the top three staffs in the league.

2) A lineup that's pretty clearly improved from a year ago. Milton Bradley brings a dynamic to the team that they haven't had in a while, and as long as he stays healthy and happy, he's going to be productive. Shawn Green is coming off a shoulder injury, and while I don't know if he's going to put up the numbers he did two and three years ago, he's still a #4 hitter to be reckoned with. Dave Roberts doesn't get on base as often as I'd like, but when he does, he plays havoc with opposing pitchers and defenses. Adrian Beltre has always had a world of talent, but for the first time, he looks like he might be ready to put together a full season instead of just two months. Juan Encarnacion is younger than Brian Jordan, less injury-prone, and you have to believe his production is going to be at least equal to Jordan's (and certainly better than Burnitz's). Izturis is no A-Rod, but he's young, and he's improving. Will he continue to hit .300? I'd take .270. LoDuca should hopefully also put a full season together now that Tracy has a reliable backup option in David Ross to help shoulder the burden.

Don't get me wrong, this offense isn't the 2003 Red Sox, the 1927 Yankees, or even the Indians teams of the 1990s. But this offense also isn't the pathetic display we saw last year, either. They were 26-23 in one-run games, with a total of 574 runs scored. That's ~3.54 runs/game, for those of you doing the math. So far this year, they've scored 59 runs in 12 games (of which they've won 9), good for an average of about 4.92 runs/game. That, incidentally, is about 0.26 runs/game more than the Giants scored a year ago, and the Giants won the West. Losing Brown and Quantrill from last year's staff will absolutely hurt, but if Green continues to regain his form, Beltre finally becomes the hitter everybody's expected him to be, and Bradley continues to draw walks, get some timely hits, and even do things like move the runners over with well-timed groundballs (which he's shown an ability to do so far), the Dodgers almost can't help but be better for it.

Now, all of that said, I look at the Giants, and I see two things:

1) I see a pitching staff that returns three of its starters from a year ago. Schmidt is, and will be, Schmidt. Jerome Williams is young, and should improve with time. Like Schmidt, Reuter is Reuter, but Reuter at his best is fairly average. Ainsworth is gone, and Ponson is an Oriole again, and I think the Giants are going to feel the holes they've left behind. The entire bullpen seems to have gotten something of an overhaul, and honestly, I'm not sure that's a good thing, although we admittedly haven't seen enough of the current crew to know if they'll be better or worse than a year ago, or simply status quo. They could well be better, I'll not deny that, but let's just say if I'm a Giants fan, I'm not optimistic.

2) If the Giants could send Barry Bonds to the plate 8 times a game, they wouldn't have a thing to worry about. They can't, obviously, so the next best option is to surround him with a dangerous supporting cast, much the way the '02 Giants had Aurilia, Kent and Santiago to punish teams who chose to pitch around him. Who've they got this season? Ray Durham is batting .343 with a .425 OBP, and that's a fine start, but let's not forget that his career BA is .279, and his career OBP is .353. If he can maintain his current pace, or at least not stumble too badly, he'll help, but he can't do it alone. If he regresses to the mean, that's a fairly average bat. Nothing to scoff at, but nothing to make pitchers think twice about pitching around Barry, either. Marquis Grissom? The man hasn't had a full-season OBP of even .340 in a decade, and he's on the wrong side of 35. No way in hell he keeps up his current pace. As MrBug said, he was the 4th OF for the Dodgers, but he would have been less than that, even, on a lot of other clubs. That he's a starter for the Giants says something, and it isn't good, IMO. Pierzynski, Tucker, Perez, Snow, Alfonso...all of them are struggling with the bat, and none of them are particularly special. I will grant that that's a Gold Glove defense on the field, but c'mon: the Dodgers had a sparkling defense and near-historic pitching a year ago, and what did that get them?

I'm not going to write the Giants off. Brian Sabean has pulled too many rabbits out of his hat in the last 7 years for me to say with a straight face that the Giants are done just two weeks into April.

By the same token, while I'm enthusiastic about the start LA has gotten off to, we haven't even played 10% of the games yet. I'm not ready to hand them the NL West title, either.

It's a long season, and with the possible exception of the Rockies, none of these teams are in such dire straits that they can be discounted as a division contender. By the same token, none of these teams (particularly the Rockies) have a talent level so clearly heads and shoulders above the rest of the division that they can be expected to run away with it.

But if I had to guess? The Dodgers will scratch out a win the West, the Padres and Giants will duke it out for 2nd (and neither team will be all that far behind LA when the dust settles), Arizona will move quietly into rebuilding mode (they're just too old to do anymore what they have been doing), and the Rockies will continue to be Tampa Bay West, thanks to their horrendous home/road splits.

Just my two cents.

[Crapshoot]

Have I mentioned how much I hate reasonable, logical, intelligent thought out responses from Dodger fans ?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Vince

Well, saying that Grissom was the 4th OF for the Dodgers two years ago speaks more of the Dodgers' depth chart management woes than the Giants' lack of talent. I'm too busy to look up the stats now, but Grissom is much better than you guys gave him credit for.

I just want to revisit this, as I didn't really spend too much time on it in my previous post. Below, I'm going to post, in order, the following numbers for Grissom: batting average, walks, strikeouts, OBP, SLG, and stolen bases for every full season that Grissom has played in the majors:

1991: .267 BA, 34 BB, 89 K, .310 OBP, .373 SLG 76 SB
1992: .276 BA, 42 BB, 81 K, .322 OBP, .418 SLG, 78 SB
1993: .298 BA, 52 BB, 76 K, .351 OBP, .438 SLG, 53 SB
1994: .288 BA, 41 BB, 66 K, .344 OBP, .427 SLG, 36 SB
1995: .258 BA, 47 BB, 61 K, .317 OBP, .376 SLG, 29 SB
1996: .308 BA, 41 BB, 73 K, .349 OBP, .489 SLG, 28 SB
1997: .262 BA, 43 BB, 89 K, .317 OBP, .396 SLG, 22 SB
1998: .271 BA, 24 BB, 78 K, .304 OBP, .382 SLG, 13 SB
1999: .267 BA, 49 BB, 109 K, .320 OBP, .415 SLG, 24 SB
2000: .244 BA, 39 BB, 99 K, .288 OBP, .351 SLG, 20 SB
2001: .221 BA, 16 BB, 107 K, .250 OBP, .404 SLG, 7 SB
2002: .277 BA, 22 BB, 68 K, .321 OBP, .510 SLG, 5 SB
2003: .300 BA, 20 BB, 82 K, .322 OBP, .468 SLG, 11 SB

He hasn't had too many years where his OPS was even .700, and the ones he DID have were primarily due to high triples totals (which I didn't list). He had 10 triples with the Braves in '96, for example, and 4 with LA in 2002, when he broke a .500 SLG for the only time in his career.

I would argue that Grissom's value early in his career, when his speed was still a significant value, made him comparable to Dave Roberts' current value for the Dodgers, except that Grissom's strikeout totals have always been more in line with those of a power hitter (and I don't really consider 15-20 HR/year to be a "power" hitter). As the years have gone by, his walk totals have plummeted, and they were never all that high to begin with. He no longer steals bases with any regularity, so any value he had on the basepaths is more or less negated. He's only average as a hitter, with a .273 lifetime mark, and only two seasons over .270 since 1998.

Is he a decent ballplayer? Sure. But to say that he's somehow something more than what the Dodgers saw in him during 2001 and 2002 is a walk out on a long, perilously thin limb. In recent years, he simply hasn't been a starting-caliber outfielder, except perhaps defensively (and I'm not going to argue that one way or the other). As I say, he's off to a fine start this year, and last year was one of the better years he's had in recent memory, but at his age, that's more because of Bonds' presence in the lineup than any particular resurgence on Grissom's part. He's not going to continue to put up these numbers. It's terribly unusual for ANYBODY to see new life breathed into their career after the age of 35. For the Giants to have not just one, but two such players would absolutely boggle the imagination.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Have I mentioned how much I hate reasonable, logical, intelligent thought out responses from Dodger fans ?

All part of the service.

[Eaglesfan27]

In regards to Bonds and steroids, I don't know if he took them or not. However, I do know with some of the new designer steroids that are available, people can continue to get most of the benefits for up to 9 months after they stopped using them. Particularly, if they have been using them for an extended period of time. I'm sure experts will point this out in the various media outlets as this debate continues. Therefore, Bonds could hit 80 HR's this year, and I don't think it would prove anything about past steroid abuse. For that matter, I'm not sure it would really prove anything about current steroid use, as the designer steroids keep staying ahead of the detection technology.

[Ksyrup]

I'm with Peter Gammons. His HR totals, while amazing, don't interest me as much now as does the possibility that he could hit .400. I'd like to see someone argue that steroids helped him hit .400. The fact that he's going the other way with hits against the shift, is a beautiful thing. He's walking into second base on grounders to 3rd.

So, in my opinion, if he breaks the HR record, that's great, but he'll still have his detractors. If he hits .400, I think he diffuses some of the talk that he's not as great a ballplayer simply because of the possible steroids use.

I'm simply not going to hold any of these allegations against him until I have proof that he did something illegal. And in my mind, the worst thing he's probably done is take supplements that were legal at the time he took them, much like McGwire. I fail to see why that should be held against either of them.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And in my mind, the worst thing he's probably done is take supplements that were legal at the time he took them, much like McGwire. I fail to see why that should be held against either of them.

But you're building your conclusion of what you admit to be your own premise. (my emphasis added above) Of course nobody who believes that all he took were legal supplements is railing against him as a cheater.

There are, however, plenty of people who believe that he has taken or is taking substances that are beyond legal supplements - true stroids, growth hormones, and the like. And for the people who think "in their minds" that's what he has done - of course they will hold it against him.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Bonds is awesome and I think he is trying to top his past 3 yrs. to prove to people that he's not on roids.

How will topping the last 3 years prove he was not on roids? If anything, it will simply fuel speculation. I mean, he has obviously paid one lab to design a new steroid that is undetected by current tests, why can't he be doing it again?

[Huckleberry]

Increased strength can improve batting average. It brings increased bat speed, of course, which when combined with a discerning eye at the plate allows the batter a significant advantage in terms of how long they can get a look at the pitch before they have to start their swing.

[Butter]

In answer to the titular question:

He's a dick.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But you're building your conclusion of what you admit to be your own premise. (my emphasis added above) Of course nobody who believes that all he took were legal supplements is railing against him as a cheater.

There are, however, plenty of people who believe that he has taken or is taking substances that are beyond legal supplements - true stroids, growth hormones, and the like. And for the people who think "in their minds" that's what he has done - of course they will hold it against him.

That's fine, except none of us has anything other than anecdotal proof that he was taking legal OR illegal substances. So holding anything against the guy at this point seems ridiculous, IMO. Putting aside the complicating pressures of the union, you're essentially asking the guy to prove a negative, and an historical negative at that ("I'm not taking them now, and I haven't taken them in the past"). Even if he was in a position to come right out and offer to prove his innocence...how would he do that exactly?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I mean, he has obviously paid one lab to design a new steroid that is undetected by current tests...

And your "obvious" proof is...?

Man, this is like deja vu, only this is truly rank speculation on your part.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's fine, except none of us has anything other than anecdotal proof that he was taking legal OR illegal substances. So holding anything against the guy at this point seems ridiculous, IMO. Putting aside the complicating pressures of the union, you're essentially asking the guy to prove a negative, and an historical negative at that ("I'm not taking them now, and I haven't taken them in the past"). Even if he was in a position to come right out and offer to prove his innocence...how would he do that exactly?

What difference does it make if we hold it against him? His he going to get ma dand start crying like a baby? Post our names in a list on his website?

I think he's taken 'roids in the past, I think he still takes him. I think he's convinced himself he's not doing anything wrong. He's probably moved on to the next "untraceable steroid" already.

I would love to see congress for the release of THG tests on the samples they have from last year.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's fine, except none of us has anything other than anecdotal proof that he was taking legal OR illegal substances. So holding anything against the guy at this point seems ridiculous, IMO. Putting aside the complicating pressures of the union, you're essentially asking the guy to prove a negative, and an historical negative at that ("I'm not taking them now, and I haven't taken them in the past"). Even if he was in a position to come right out and offer to prove his innocence...how would he do that exactly?

And I have no problem with the logical argument of "if we can't prove he did something bad, we can't hold it against him" which you advance. That argument holds water to me, and isn't the source of my criticism above.

My criticism above is on your argument that "I personally think what he did was within the rules, and I think it's unfair for people to be mad at him for being within the rules." You presupposed your own opinion in drawing your conclusion about what other people's conclusions should be.

Sitck with "no proof" and I've got nothing to say about it, from a purely logical perspective.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And your "obvious" proof is...?

Man, this is like deja vu, only this is truly rank speculation on your part.

And YOUR proof is what?

Neither side of the argument has proof at this point. Simply saying "well he hasn't been caught yet" doesn't make your argument gospel.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

It brings increased bat speed...

And so can switching to a lighter bat, or changing your batting stance or the positioning of your hands.

Again, show me proof that any of this happened, and that it affected his production, and I'll be willing to stick a big ole' asterisks next to his name as someone who got caught for doing something illegal and was made an example of (as opposed to someone like Gaylord Perry, who was caught doing something illegal but elected to the Hall of Fame).

[HornedFrog Purple]

I really want to root for Barry Bonds. Honestly.

My thing with him is he still has this grudge with the media over events that happened so many years. The rest of us (the fans) suffer.

When Cal Ripken broke the consecutive starts record, he was so open and said how great of an honor it was and if it wasn't for the guys before him who have been playing this game for 100 years, he wouldn't be there today.

I just don't get that from Barry and that is a shame. Let bygones be bygones, let yourself and the rest of us enjoy what you are doing.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

And YOUR proof is what?

Neither side of the argument has proof at this point. Simply saying "well he hasn't been caught yet" doesn't make your argument gospel.

I don't need proof to advocate the status quo. I'm not the one suggesting that his records mean nothing. I'm suggesting that things should remain the way they are now, until proven otherwise. I don't bear the burden of proof.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And so can switching to a lighter bat, or changing your batting stance or the positioning of your hands.

Again, show me proof that any of this happened, and that it affected his production, and I'll be willing to stick a big ole' asterisks next to his name as someone who got caught for doing something illegal and was made an example of (as opposed to someone like Gaylord Perry, who was caught doing something illegal but elected to the Hall of Fame).

Nobody is saying to asterisk his accomplishments based on speculation, but people are certainly holdit against him until the facts come out.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't need proof to advocate the status quo. I'm not the one suggesting that his records mean nothing. I'm suggesting that things should remain the way they are now, until proven otherwise. I don't bear the burden of proof.

And our side doesn't have to "prove" anything to justify being suspicious of his stats.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

I really want to root for Barry Bonds. Honestly.

My thing with him is he still has this grudge with the media over events that happened so many years. The rest of us (the fans) suffer.

When Cal Ripken broke the consecutive starts record, he was so open and said how great of an honor it was and if it wasn't for the guys before him who have been playing this game for 100 years, he wouldn't be there today.

I just don't get that from Barry and that is a shame. Let bygones be bygones, let yourself and the rest of us enjoy what you are doing.

In compeltely understand that, and I think that is precisely why people want to hold the steroids thing against him, absent proof. Hey, the facts may ultimately come out, and he may be the guiltiest of any current or former MLB'er. If so, then he should pay the price. But the fact that he's a bastard (or allows himself to be protrayed as such through the media) doesn't mean we should lessen the burden of proof to conduct a "Leona Helmsley"-type with hunt.

If he's guilty, let someone prove it, and we then we can all revel in the fall of the Big Bastard. If he not, then he's a terrific baseball story, even if he's less than a terrific human being.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

And our side doesn't have to "prove" anything to justify being suspicious of his stats.

Being "suspicious?" You (and I'm not referring solely to you here) want MLB to discount his stats and discredit his chase of the HR record. That's "being suspicious?!" Sounds like the decision has already been made on what happened, now you're trying to remedy his wrong-doing.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

In compeltely understand that, and I think that is precisely why people want to hold the steroids thing against him, absent proof. Hey, the facts may ultimately come out, and he may be the guiltiest of any current or former MLB'er. If so, then he should pay the price. But the fact that he's a bastard (or allows himself to be protrayed as such through the media) doesn't mean we should lessen the burden of proof to conduct a "Leona Helmsley"-type with hunt.

If he's guilty, let someone prove it, and we then we can all revel in the fall of the Big Bastard. If he not, then he's a terrific baseball story, even if he's less than a terrific human being.

I don't give 2 shits if he has a grudge against the media. I don't think a lot of fans care about that. The fact that his HR totals and other stats skyrocketed late in his career, in the age of supplements, raises doubts plain and simple. It's not a witch hunt, and besides, we will likely never know as the union will do everything in its power to keep his guilt (if he has done them) quiet.

You never heard anything officially about Jordan's suspension for gambling did you? You think you would hear anything about Bonds? (and Jordan is my fave player but come on)

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Nobody is saying to asterisk his accomplishments based on speculation, but people are certainly holdit against him until the facts come out.

Why isn't anyone advocating that we hold the same allegations against Giambi and Sheffield? They've both won MVP Awards, potentially while juiced. Where's the outrage over them? And if it affected their abilities so much, why haven't they put up 70 HRs?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And your "obvious" proof is...?

Man, this is like deja vu, only this is truly rank speculation on your part.

Uhhh, not on my part - an example of what doubters/haters would say refuting the concept that Bonds having his best season this year somehow proves that he was not on roids in the past.

For the record, I do think Bonds is/has been on steroids, but do not expect anyone to accept it as fact.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Being "suspicious?" You (and I'm not referring solely to you here) want MLB to discount his stats and discredit his chase of the HR record. That's "being suspicious?!" Sounds like the decision has already been made on what happened, now you're trying to remedy his wrong-doing.

Personally, I don't want his records striken or asteriked as it is now. I DO however want them to test his samples form last year and release the results.

A LOT of people are suspicious yet don't think anything should be done until the facts come out.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You never heard anything officially about Jordan's suspension for gambling did you? You think you would hear anything about Bonds? (and Jordan is my fave player but come on)

Precisely my point. Jordan was a "good guy," so the fans overlooked the fact that he "retired" and played baseball for a year shortly after allegations of gambling surfaced. Here, all we have is similar "facts" - also known as allegations - and people want to "hold it against him." Funny how none of this talk came up with Jordan.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Why isn't anyone advocating that we hold the same allegations against Giambi and Sheffield? They've both won MVP Awards, potentially while juiced. Where's the outrage over them? And if it affected their abilities so much, why haven't they put up 70 HRs?

Go ahead and strike their records down. Same with Caminiti, Canseco, and anyone else that took them. I haven't heard anything about Sheffield but I think everyone knows Giambi was on them.

I know you gotta defend your favorite player but sheesh, this is getting to "Kodos defending EA" proportions.

[rkmsuf]

Who cares...let them juice. 150 HRs would be cool.