Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Sports Illustrated is running an excerpt from a new book that details Barry Bonds' steroid use. This is, in many ways, an old story. Bonds' role in the BALCO saga has been discussed on several occasions over the last two years in the media and in Batter's Box. At least two books about steroids were authored last year by Will Carroll and Howard Bryant. But because Bonds is a star the story never ends. If you want to wade into the debate one more time please do so in this thread.

The book is Game of Shadows written by the two reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle who originally broke the BALCO story. There are two stories here, one about Bonds and one about steroids in baseball, with a number of sub-threads. Let me share my perspective with you.

The Record

The Bonds story is big because he has become the greatest home run hitter in the game and now he is taking a run at the all time home run record. If Bonds is healthy enough to play this season, and get close to Hank Aaron's record, fans will be both fascinated and horrified. They will be fascinated by Bonds' amazing ability to hit home runs at his age, and horrified by the thought that a cheater could rise to hold the most cherished record in baseball. Bonds' run at the record will be slowed by these latest revelations. He will be under intense scrutiny and opposing fans will be loud and insulting to Barry. The local media in each city will be asking the same old questions. But that is not new to Barry, he might soldier on regardless, but I think it will wear him down and he might call it quits after this season.

The Game

The debate regarding what baseball insiders knew will likely continue until someone spills the beans. Undoubtedly the McGwire and Sosa race for the record really helped major league baseball. Fans do indeed "dig the long ball". So, in a way, steroids helped baseball. But that is a fine line, if fans believe the players are mutated freaks they will lose interest and parents will discourage their kids from following the game. Baseball has recognized this risk, but the main objective of baseball, and the union, is to keep steroids talk out of the papers. The illusion that the game is clean is the most important thing, more on that topic below.

Cheater!

Some fans claim Bonds is not a cheater, that steroids were not banned by baseball. Others claim that Bonds and others use of steroids is akin to corking a bat, or slicing the ball, "getting an edge is part of baseball". I contend that his performance while using steroids, and those of the other home run hitters, show that there is a scale here that is unmatched by cork or a razor-blade. Bonds performance, for his age, is unmatched in major league history. Creatine, vitamins, and other substances can also help an athlete get stronger but steroids are in a class of their own. How many guys who hit 50 home runs talk about their vitamin regime? Look at all the big home run hitters of the last ten years and then you decide. Bonds is a cheater, period.

The Hall of Fame

Mark McGwire will be up for election to the Hall of Fame before Bonds. How will the voters handle them, will they be treated the same or differently? Both were great players before the steroid era but some voters will withhold their votes because of the steroid issue. I don't think it is fair to look at Bonds' numbers, steroid aided. I also don't think it is fair to leave him out of consideration for the Hall of Fame. I would look at his career, pre-steroids, assume a normal, non-juiced, end of career, and make my determination based on those theoretical numbers, not on the actuals.

Steroids - do they work?

Does anyone really doubt that they work? Yes they won't give me the ability to hit a 95 mph fastball, but if I have the talent to be a major leaguer it will make me better, stronger and healthier. Look at any interview with a steroid user and you will find they all could see and feel the benefits. The one interview I always remember was Keli White, the sprinter, who was implicated in the BALCO scandal, and was interviewed on ABC. Unlike Bonds she admitted her involvement and took her penalty. She talked about starting to use the "cream" or the "clear", or both, and she was amazed at her ability to work out. She could do a hard workout in the morning and another one in the afternoon. She could see the impact of the drugs immediately, it was not so subtle that she could claim ignorance. It is that capacity to increase workload, and resulting muscle mass, that makes steroids so valuable. Steroids develop strength and help athletes recover from injury. Readers with long memories will remember injury recovery was Ben Johnson's downfall. Johnson developed an injury close to the Olympics when he was supposed to be off steroids, he took the steroids anyway to allow him to recover enough to run in the Olympics. His gamble backfired. But steroids do work, without a doubt.

The New Drug Testing Regime

I am amazed at how gullible reporters and fans are when it comes to the new testing regime in baseball. Stories about how the problem is over and no-one is taking steroids anymore are unbelievable to me. Athletes have been able to dodge or fool drug testing for years. After Ben Johnson's test, and the resultant enquiry, some fans thought the sport had been cleared up but just look around. Even though there was drug testing in the Olympics for years there continues to be athletes caught. The BALCO affair exposed a number of athletes who were using illegal substances. The last summer Olympics saw two Greek sprinters exposed in drug allegations. The recent winter Olympics had a drug raid on some of the Austrian athletes and their doctor end up in a psychiatric ward. The Tour DeFrance continues to find EPO dopers. Athletes cheat, and they only get caught when there is a new testing regimen or when they slip up. There are other new designer drugs, similar to the "clear: and the "cream", that are available today. There are great masking agents for the older steroids that help avoid detection. Let me put it this way: Steroids improve your game; there are some athletes who will use anything to either make it to the big leagues or to improve their game; there are drugs available that will let you get better and that are undetectable; some athletes will take them and are willing to take the risk of detection; and some of them will tell their friends who will also use them. This is no place for idealism, this is close to a life or death issue for some athletes.

Consider this. Let's say you are a hitter in AAA whose career has stalled. You have had a little bit of major league time but younger guys are moving ahead of you on the depth chart. If you could gain 20 pounds some of those fly balls would become home runs. You just need an edge. If you don't make the majors this season you will be released and then it might be time to look for a job. You signed right out of high school, you don't have an education, so you will have to look for a car sales or life insurance sales job for, maybe, $30,000 per year. Your family still believe in you and you can feel their desire for you to succeed, especially your parents who sacrificed so much for you. If you were released it would kill their dreams too. Or, if you use the juice, you could get that edge, likely win a major league job, make $330,000 per year, and after four years have a shot at a pension. After baseball you would then have a much better chance at a higher profile job. That is a tough choice and it is no coincidence that many fringe players were caught using steroids in 2005. There is a big difference between minor league and major league pay.

Proof

Some fans just don't want to believe this and claim there is no proof. I think there is a lot of proof on Bonds. The government have evidence from the BALCO investigation of five major leaguers who were users. Palmeiro, and others were caught by the testing last year. More than 5% were caught the year before, anonymously. Some fans might not want to believe, but the steroids are available and humans have proven to be willing to take substances to make their lives better.

In case you hadn't figured it out I believe Barry Bonds has used steroids. I also believe many major leaguers continue to use them, despite the testing regimen. And steroids work.

Barry Bonds - Again | 50 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
TangoTiger - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:17 AM EST (#142049) #
I'll reiterate my position here:

A majority of fans and owners have a slight preference to have drug-free athletes, but the drug habits of their athletes will not diminish their desire to watch those very same players. And perhaps only an epidemic among the children will change fans' perspective from a slight preference to actual caring.

Gerry - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:28 AM EST (#142050) #
Tango, I agree with you if it is hidden. If drug-use is blatant, and admitted to by all involved, then the perception of the sport will change.

I think many football fans believe many linemen use steroids but the drug tests come back clean and virtually no-one admits to it.

So the sport, and fans, want to believe the game is clean. But I will say, as a parent of kids who played competitive sports, I was reluctant to have them think of a career in sports because of the internal pressure to use these substances.
Pistol - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:32 AM EST (#142052) #
"I am amazed at how gullible reporters and fans are when it comes to the new testing regime in baseball."

I think it's pretty common knowledge that the drug testing can't detect HGH without taking a blood sample.

Other than a few more specifics I don't think this latest news is particularly noteworthy. If you didn't believe Bonds took some sort of PEDs before it's only going to take a positive test to convince you of it.

VBF - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:39 AM EST (#142054) #
Re: Home Run Records

Sportsnet's running a poll on what MLB should do to Bonds' record should he pass Hank Aaron. I think it would look far worse on baseball do they choose to stick an asterisk next to his name, or to ignore him completely as it is an option on the poll.

I've already lost any respect I've had for Barry and he'll get what's coming to him--sticking an asterisk to his name or deleting his record isn't intended to discipline Bonds. I don't care about how this affects him.

MLB is clearly and obviously against the use of performance enhancing drugs and they've taken initiative in showing that such usage will be disciplined. That's all I expect of MLB to do and am satisfied with their action, as long as they continue to update their testing systems, which they will.

Other than that, bit the bullet and move on. Any corrective action of records or numbers would take this thing to a whole other, much sillier level.

MLB's already stated their position, so it's best to ignore all this and carry on with regular business. Bonds could break every record in baseball, but he'll never command the respect and honour that Hank Aaron has. Everybody will know who the real winner is anyways.
Mike D - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:42 AM EST (#142055) #
Tango, I thought your take on this was very interesting, but I'd like to ask you to clarify your central point if I may.

You cite to the continued growth of attendance as evidence that fans don't care any more than mildly about the steroid epidemic, real and/or perceived. But what are fans who care deeply to do?

The growth of attendance is not entirely caused by, and may not even be correlated to, home run hitting. With a few unfortunate exceptions, baseball today features big markets with excellent teams, and small markets with popular new ballparks.

I'm not sure how fans can express how much they care about the steroids issue. They can stay home, I guess, but that involves assuming that every game features enough tainted players that the game itself is corrupted.

Speaking only for myself, I care a good deal about this issue and I do want to watch players less once I learn that they've been cheating. But what should I do? Stop watching baseball until every known cheater has been rooted out? Stop watching baseball under the assumption that there are far more cheaters than are known?
Named For Hank - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:44 AM EST (#142056) #
I was laughing the other day about the NHL's drug testing policy, in which it is illegal to take a handful of performance enhancing drugs, but it is explicitly NOT illegal to take something that would hide that you are taking a performance enhancing drug.

So, uh, all you're doing is telling the athletes to spend good money on masking agents, right?

In other words, the NHL system will only catch the really stupid and the really unlucky.

Can anyone tell me where MLB stands on this one? The NHL policy only came to light because Jose Theodore was barred from Olympic competition for using a hair growth product.
eeleye - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:45 AM EST (#142057) #
Pistol I agree with you. And what's more, I think this investigation crosses the line. The SI article states:

"In addition to detailing the drug usage, the excerpt portrays Bonds as a menacing boor, a tax cheat and an adulterer given to (probably because of the rampant steroid use) sexual dysfunction, hair loss and wild mood swings that included periods of rage." (how do you italicize?)

Anyway, they are already on the verge of ruining his career. He may be a cheater but he's not a monster, and these authors are absolutely tearing him to shreds. They are hitting him below the belt. He did this all just to be a great BASEBALL player; its not like he's a serial killer or he's really hurting anyone else. Even with the death threats to his wife, there is a time and place to report those, and they shouldn't have been packaged with this book deal. I am angry at the viciousness of the way these authors have handled this, who are ultimately in this for profit also. And no one thinks Bonds is a bigger cheater than me.
Ryan Day - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 11:48 AM EST (#142058) #
I was struck by an interesting comparison yesterday:

Kirby Puckett, despite some very serious allegations, was still regarded as a great guy and a fantastic player. Almost all of the obit columns I read talked about how everyone loved him, he was a great ambassador of the game, and so on. Regardless of their veracity, the things he was accused of never really stuck in the public's concious. (granted, these things came out after he retired)

Barry Bonds has, to my knowledge, never been implicated in violence or abuse or sexual misconduct. But I don't think he's ever going to escape the steroid thing, regardless of its truth. If he makes the Hall, articles will be full of questions and doubts. It'll probably follow him to his death, unless he makes some miraculous public image turnaround and becomes a star manager or something. He'll also have the "Barry is a Jerk" image following him forever, which might otherwise have been written off as a quirk of character, or maybe proof of intensity and a single-minded focus.

It seems an odd comparison to make, but I think one thing is clear: Fans want to have at least a perception that the game is being played cleanly. They want players who go all-out and play fair. They're willing to overlook personal problems, even crimes and addictions, if they feel they're getting an honest product on the field. That's what they're payinig for, after all.

As soon as that trust is broken, they turn, and even a previously clean image can go up in smoke: Look at how quickly Sammy Sosa went from being a hero to a washed-up cheater.

eeleye - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 12:00 PM EST (#142060) #
Ryan Day, Gerry, I completely agree with you.

Personally, I love the excitement of homeruns, but I'd rather 50 cleanly done HRs then 60-70 fake ones: what's the point? This game is about natural athletic talent and amazing plays. Not a competition between who has the best drug cocktail. And furthermore, at the time, the homerun race of 1998 probably did help attendance, but that was then, and I think baseball would be just as popular today...as the homeruns are already not being hit as much and its still at a peak of popularity.

Second, I think the thing to do with the current stats of the main steroid users (Mcgwire, Bonds, Sosa, etc) is this: with Bonds, the MLB should admit the book is right, and take his numbers from 1998, and put them in line with his previous career projections. If you extrapolate at the rate he was going before 1998, he would have 541 career homeruns, a much more realistic, and still great, number....
Ducey - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 12:18 PM EST (#142063) #
Well, I for one feel Bonds deserves eveything he gets. How is calling him a tax cheat hitting below the belt? If its true, it gives you a further insight into his character (or lack thereof).

I think this is essentially a modern version of one of those Greek or Roman tragedies. Bonds took steroids etc. to earn respect, to become a star, to be a success, a hero, to fill whatever inadequacy he had. While secret, his steroids allowed him to do that. Now that they are increasingly public, he will find it even more difficult to earn respect, success, and self respect. Now he is finding that hitting home runs is not enough to be a hero.

I have no doubt that Bonds will stick around as long as he needs to to break the HR record. It must be his last hope for salvation in the court of public opinion. Unfortunatly for Bonds, I think his achievement of the record will just attract more scorn from the media and the public.

I might forgive Bonbs if he came clean (literally and figuratively), and admitted his cheating. There is little hope of that. I only hope that as he sits in retirement, unable to erase the disrespect he has so rightly earned, his body ravaged by rare diseases he will almost certainly suffer from (maybe he will be in a special ward with all WWF, NFL types), that he might suffer some regrets.

I do hope that Bonds suffers, and suffers greatly. I do this not out of hate for the guy but so that perhaps he will serve as model for how not to succeed in sports and in life.
Newton - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 12:24 PM EST (#142066) #
Re: Game of Shadows

This, simply put, is not news.

Anybody who still needed convincing probably lacks the capacity to read the aforementioned book.

61 remains the big number for me, but 73 will be there in the back of my mind, much like Ben Johnson's 9.79 in 1988, as a startling spectacle. (McGwire and Sosa were no different friends)

I'm not sure what baseball should do going forward. The NFL seems to have developed the best Public relations drug testing regime (in that it gives the appearance of testing but leaves ample room to take roids) while the Dick Pound/Olympic approach is best for the safety of the athletes and the intergrity of the game but will lead to a constant string of positive tests (a la the Olympics).

A young man shouldn't have to sacrifice his health to make the bigs, that, in essence, is why drug testing is
required.

The safety underpinning of a testing regime might also provide some room for a compromise position: make the safest, currently illegal, performance enhancers legal (if any of them can indeed be classified as safe) thereby eliminating the incentive to take everything under the sun (the much smaller potential performance benefit wouldn't justify the concomitant health risks).

I'm not sure whether such a system would be accepted by the fans...
Mike Green - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 12:29 PM EST (#142067) #
Much attention has been given to the effect of steroid use on historical records and the Hall of Fame- Roger Maris' seasonal home run record being the most famous of these records. Should we look at the broken records differently because of steroid use?

Yes. Widespread steroid use seems to be a condition of the time, much as the use of the shineball and the spitball allowed pitchers to dominate in earlier times. This doesn't mean that Barry Bonds, for instance, was not a great player (his performance in the early 90s makes this clear), but simply that any player who hit 60 homers or more during the period 1994-2004 was not achieving something akin to what that meant during the period 1945-1985 say. There are no absolutes; context always matters.

The Hall of Fame is a different question. I've covered it in my Hall Watch series to some extent. There are two elements to it. First, applying the contextual adjustments, was the player in fact great? There will probably be many cases of uncertainty, and it would not be a surprise to see uncertainty of the adjusted performance of the player held against him. Second, even if the player was in fact great, is repeated steroid use, like betting on baseball, a bar? The Hall of Fame is an honour; compliance with the law is not the only requirement. Notwithstanding this, there are players who have been honoured who are hardly role models for all kinds of reasons. Cheating (stealing signs using cameras, for instance) has been tolerated. Off-field bad behaviour of all kinds has been tolerated. The line has been drawn at betting on baseball (whether for or against one's own team). It's not clear where steroid use falls in this.
John Northey - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 12:55 PM EST (#142069) #
The steroid issue is always big. I think important questions are what is an illegal drug, what is legal, and why.

Looking back at Ben Johnson and crew, their records are all gone naturally now, ie: via people beating them. Given back in '88 people were saying there was no way anyone could run under 9.8 legally it is suprising we don't see more doubt about sprinters. Same with football (c'mon, they are clean?).

In the end, Bonds was great and did things we never thought we'd see (never though I'd see, under any conditions, Ruth's single season numbers for Slg & OBP broken). Did he cheat, based on the idea that steroids and the like are cheating? It does appear so (I'd put it at 99% odds). I'll always remember enjoying watching the league become so scared they'd intentionally walk him with the bases empty, wondering if he'd get over 800 for Slg% for the season, etc.

To me, I'd still let guys like Bonds, McGwire, Palmerio, Sosa into the HOF and keep guys like Rose & Joe Jackson out. Cheating to win has been accepted forever (if you get away with it ala Gaylord Perry) while gambling (potentially to lose) has never been. If someone is marginal (in many ways Sosa lands here and some would argue Palmerio as well) I'd not vote for them, but Bonds and McGwire are not marginal HOFers (both stars who lasted). It will be interesting to see the votes as they qualify for the HOF (Palmerio and Sosa might be at the same time too).
CaramonLS - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 01:06 PM EST (#142070) #
I just don't see how you can draw any comparisons John between rubbing sandpaper on a ball and injecting roids.

To be honest even though they are completely different circumstances, it wouldn't sit right with me to have Barry Bonds, Big Mac and Sosa in the Hall and have Rose sitting on the outside.

Either way, Roids are a complete violation of the integrity of baseball, those records which have stood for long periods of time, their impact has long altered the game even more so than Shoeless Joe and Rose could have ever even attempted.
John Northey - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 01:11 PM EST (#142072) #
With the HOF and steroids...

If you feel guys on steroids should not be in, then I hope you push for Fred McGriff and others who might come up short when compared to others of the steroid era, but whose numbers were almost certainly done 'clean' based on the rumours/body type/etc. of the players. Also, who was 'dirty'? Did Frank Thomas, for example, take drugs? What about Griffey or Bagwell or Sheffield? The way Thome has broken down suggests it is possible there too.

Sadly there is no way to know for certain who did and did not outside of people who test positive (Palmerio), who are caught via rumours and the like (Sosa, McGwire), or are written about by those who should know (Bonds).
John Northey - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 01:23 PM EST (#142075) #
I just don't see how you can draw any comparisons John between rubbing sandpaper on a ball and injecting roids.

Good point. Rubbing sandpaper on the ball could cause it to move uncontrollably and kill a batter while the drugs will only kill the guy using them.

I know that wasn't the point you were making Caramon but I think it is important to consider. What steroid users do is the classic short term gain-long term pain situation. Steroids were not illegal in baseball terms until recently. In fact, some would say they were encouraged by managment in an effort to make baseball more sellable (more HR=more seats sold).

I know I'm in the minority here, but to me 'integrity of baseball' is in everyone playing to win, not in how they do it. Of course, I am still a Ty Cobb (baseball, not as a human being) fan despite his obvious problems and cheating (spikes into other guys legs a good example). Also, is doing drugs that hurt your performance also hurting the 'integrity of the game'? After all, Mickey Mantle did that with his alcohol. What about other drugs that enhance your game, such as 'greenies'? Many, many players have used those and there is no question they helped those players (many HOFers used them without a doubt). Or, in that case, is it that enough used them that no one cares?

I know, I'm spitting into the wind here. ::sigh:: Ah well. Each of us has our own standards of what is acceptable and what is not. Is there anyone else out there who feels, like I do, that if the drug is legal for people to use then go ahead and use it and if it is illegal that it is up to the police to get the player, not MLB?

Cristian - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 01:23 PM EST (#142076) #
One of the forgotten benefits of steroids is how they enhance your ability to strongarm a union.

It's fair to assume that most people believe that only a minority of players have been using steroids. If so, then why haven't the clean players risen up in arms demanding the toughest performance enhancing testing regime possible. Every large contract earned by a steroid user comes at the expense of those who are playing clean. If the money available for players is finite, then those on steroids aren't only cheating but stealing from fellow union members.

That the MLBPA hasn't initiated the toughest regime possible makes me believe that PED-use is much higher than anyone assumes.

I hope that, in the past, most players were on nothing more than greenies and other uppers. If so, then I can understand why players would be hesitant to comdemn other drugs. I guess well see this year with greenies out of the picture. I would assume that if players are hepped up on nothing more than coffee, then they won't be so quiet about steroids, HGH, and whatever else is concocted.
TangoTiger - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 01:37 PM EST (#142077) #
But what are fans who care deeply to do?

Just talking about it as we are, we have to first admit that this is nothing more than a soap opera. Talk for the sake of talk.

Stop watching MLB games. Go to minors or collge or HS games. And who knows, I'd bet the percentage of steroid users is highest in college. If you need to see the 95% clean athletes, then live with the fact that 5% are not clean. It's the athletes themselves that have to care about this more than the spectator. If I'm a player, I'd be an activist.

WWF/WWE is 95% scripted. There's a market for just about any kind of combination of athletics, scripting, drugs, cheating. I know we *want* to have something 100% athletics, and 0% the rest. You are not getting it. You can't complain that you are not getting it. Go somewhere else for your utopia. The closest you'll come is the NHL. Unless coffee-sudafed chaser is against your particular code.

But, no retroactive erasing of records, like things didn't happen. If the Giants won the Series in '02, we wouldn't take back their rings, would we? This is the deal, this is life. Live with it.

What is annoying is those who think that they are above it all, especially the Holy Writers. Mike Schmidt, one of the greatest ballplayers ever, a player who you think you'd want to give drugs for those darn knees of his, is the most honest person when he says that maybe he would have done it, too.

If it would have helped, I'd have accepted Bobby Orr and Andre Dawson get "banned" substances, too. ***

What's with the remark about Theodore's "masking agent"? He was approved the drug for therapeutic use, and by all accounts, for a very long time. If you see a spike in Propecia users, then maybe you have a point. But, Dick Pound, with his big mouth, ought to take it all back now. You had, what, 300 NHL players that were subjected to Olympic testing, and you caught two, one of which was known. And, given what Berard went through, not that surprising for the other one.

***

Anyway, watch the NHL, and stop watching baseball, if it means that much to anyone. It's the lesser of all evils. After Little League.

Bid - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 02:26 PM EST (#142079) #
'Rubbing sandpaper on the ball could cause it to move uncontrollably and kill a batter while the drugs will only kill the guy using them.'

If one assumes--with no evidence either way--that Kevin Mench was juiced when his come-backer fractured Holliday's tibia, this could be considered an instance of steroid use putting at risk the lives of others--the same blow to the nose or temple might easily have killed Roy. Maybe steroids in the hands (systems) of major leaguers are as dangerous as aluminum bats.
King Rat - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST (#142081) #
I do hope that Bonds suffers, and suffers greatly. I do this not out of hate for the guy but so that perhaps he will serve as model for how not to succeed in sports and in life.

Jesus.

People can disagree about the extent to which Bonds cheated, and how wrong they think it was, and what they think his place in baseball history should be, and what should happen to the record book (for the record, I think he cheated, that it was no worse, morally, than throwing spitballs routinely, that he should go down as one of the greatest hitters of all time and that touching the rule book is insane-we can all interpret it ourselves, right?) but can we at least agree that actively wishing suffering on another human being is psychotic? I don't care why you want someone who hasn't harmed anyone other than himself to suffer-it's an ugly, ugly thing to wish for.

I, for one, am increasingly tired of the drug hysteria in sports and the hypocrisy and double standards that the whole project is awash in. I understand and sympathise with the concerns of parents and friends of high-level athletes-I have a little brother who's a hell of a football player, and I don't want him risking his long-term health for short-term, fleeting athletic glory. But I'm tired of seeing Barry Bonds crucified on the basis of plausible hearsay when Lance Armstrong gets a pass from allegations that are only slightly less well documented. I'm tired of baseball being derided as a sport rife with drug cheats while the freaking NFL is praised by grandstanding Congressmen for their Potemkin drug policy. I'm tired of attention-seeking blowhards like Dick Pound make ridiculous, completely unsubstantiated allegations about specific individuals like Theodore and still be taken seriously.

John McCain, the most loathsome fraud around, at one point in those ridiculous Congressional hearings berated Don Fehr for not working harder to solve what he described as an issue of "transcendent importance." Please. Drugs in sports are, I will grant drug warriors, a problem. It's one I hope the people running the leagues solve, and it's one I genuinely think they're making progress in. But while it's too late to repair the reputations of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa et al., the sky is not falling in on baseball just yet. I think we'd be more likely to make progress on the whole sorry thing if we tried to remain calm about it, rather than panicking.

TangoTiger - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 03:00 PM EST (#142082) #
I think we'd be more likely to make progress on the whole sorry thing if we tried to remain calm about it, rather than panicking.

Are you insane? America is built around the idea that you only tackle issues where people are in the midst of panicking, whether real, or media-induced. If everyone remains calm, and tries to come up with a solution, who's going to listen? The media certainly isn't going to run stories about "Calm, cool-headed group, reaches amicable compromise". If there's no one around to listen, it didn't happen. They don't want to see a man walk on the moon... they want to see a man almost walk on the moon, but have his ship spiral out of control.

Calmness. You are 100% right. Which makes you totally wrong. Will the insanity every stop?

Mike D - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 03:17 PM EST (#142083) #
Stop watching MLB games. Go to minors or collge or HS games. And who knows, I'd bet the percentage of steroid users is highest in college. If you need to see the 95% clean athletes, then live with the fact that 5% are not clean.

Tango, I don't buy this dichotomy at all. Why can't I be a fan and also agitate for tougher testing?

"Do you oppose the Iraq war? Leave America. Move to Canada or Mexico or Bolivia. And who knows, you might find the administration in Mexico even more offensive. If you need to stay in America, then live with the policies that you find disagreeable and don't dissent."

If I put that to you, wouldn't you call it a false choice? And how is this situation logically distinguishable? I understand your point, but I just don't agree that it's inconsistent or hypocritical to both love and criticize Major League Baseball.
TangoTiger - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 03:33 PM EST (#142084) #
But why would you agitate for tougher testing? Shouldn't the players be the ones to do so? We're all aware of the playing field. There are no surprises.

Given that you have the need to agitate for the tougher testing, it's great to be a fan too. But, people shouldn't take some moral high ground in doing so. That's my problem. I'm all for freedom of expression. It's the "I'm better than you" presentation that I don't care for.

"If you need to stay in America, then live with the policies that you find disagreeable and don't dissent."

In those cases, people actually *do* care. I'm not saying not to care, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't care. People who truly oppose war actually go to the streets and participate in marches. They rally people to a cause. They actually take days from work to do so. Why can't people do a one-day "no game today" day? (Cause it doesn't work? Then do it again. All about instant gratification. What happened to belief of principles?) I love the Chronicle guys, cause they put their legs in action, and did alot of the dirty work.
Gitz - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 03:41 PM EST (#142086) #
Tango, the only difference between a "Holy Writer" and you is one of semantics. You are simply a "Holy Stat-Head." How is one ideology better or worse than the other?

You're blaming the messenger, not the message, and that message is clear and has been for anyone able to shake their mind-numbing cognitive dissonance over Bonds: he needlessly took performance-enhancing drugs to go from being one of the top five players in history to being … one of the top five players in history.

There's your metaphor for America. Never settle for mere greatness. Never settle for the 15 percent profit margin. Never settle for the first $100 million. And most of all, never admit you're wrong.

TangoTiger - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 03:43 PM EST (#142087) #
I'm not a "holy" anything. I'm saying that we should stop judging others. Though if you want to extend that I'm judging the judgers for judging the participant, then so be it. The Holy Writers are putting their stamp on an issue that they should remain as a fly on the wall.
King Rat - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 03:57 PM EST (#142088) #
Mike,

I won't presume to speak for Tango, but I've got no problem with anti-drug fans of the game advocating for stronger penalties for doping, however they do it-calling teams, calling newspapers, organizing boycotts or booing of suspected dopers or what have you. What bothers me, and I say this not necessarily implicating you, Mike, is the weird nostalgia for a "good old days" that never were among the real zealots in the anti-doping ranks.

Ballplayers, as I think we all know, used amphetamines since they were available, and high-level athletics is a constant searching for an edge by the players, whether it's legal and healthy or not. What I'd like to see, in addition to better drug testing, is an acknowlegement that the good old days were less great than we would like, that we really, as a sports-watching society, don't have any innocence left to lose at this point, and that while we can and should be better at controlling drug cheating there's no magic bullet that will wipe out cheating entirely, whether pharmaceutical or otherwise.

After I get all that, I'd like to fly to the moon.

Gitz - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 04:02 PM EST (#142089) #
I'll say a few more things before bowing out.

For me, I have never liked Bonds. I lived in the Bay Area most of my life, and, along with McGwire, he rubbed me the wrong way -- and, for that matter, most of the local fans, too. I've discussed this time and time again, and I will not repeat myself.

Nonetheless. That did NOT prevent me, like so many others, from being dumb-struck by how good he is. The way he turns on inside pitches, the way he devours the high fastball like no other left-handed hitter, his mere presence in the dish. He's awesome. Plain and simple.

And I thought this before it became clear he was doing the juice, and I disliked him then just as much as now. He wasn't asking me to like him, and I indulged him. But why the hell did he do it? He's completely sullied his reputation with the fans, though no great athlete, artist, etc. cares what the "holy writers" think, anyway. (Well, maybe artists might get a little thin-skinned every now and then.)

Even now I will probably still admire his swing, but it will forever be tainted. The loose -- very loose, for there is no equivocal act for what O.J. Simpson did -- comparison I can make is that, as a USC alum, I can't watch any more O.J. Simpson high-lights when he was at USC without thinking, "Geeze, the dude killed two people." To repeat: I am NOT equivocating the two distinctly different events, but rather am stating that the tainted feelings are similar.

I hope he gets in the Hall, but who knows? This is one point I agree with you on, Tango: the writers may indeed get on their moral high horse and deny Bonds the Hall. If they were really doing it from a base of individual morality, I would respect, but disagree with, their decision. But it seems plain that if he is indeed kept out of the Hall it is because the writers -- who are, it must be noted, distinct from the profession of writing, which is, after all, a vehicle for making a unique living in a sterile world -- simply do not like Bonds as a person.

Neither do I, but he's got my vote.
TangoTiger - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 04:25 PM EST (#142090) #
I've made this point elsewhere, but I find it appropriate to repeat. Why do we need the "cleanliness is next to godliness" approach with baseball, but not with rock and roll? If a drug-induced John Lennon is what caused his genius, am I going to stop singing his songs? Elvis kiiled himself with drugs, and yet, people make a journey to Graceland like it was The Mecca.

I also don't buy the "children" argument since, when I was growing up, the "potheads" were influenced by AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd, and not by Lyle Alzado or Dave Parker.

It's simply the whole morality question. It's simply wrong to target a particular segment of society because of someone's moral agenda.
Nolan - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 04:28 PM EST (#142091) #
Carl Lewis is to Ben Johnson what Sammy Sosa and Big Mac are to Bonds. Sosa got huge and added 26 home runs to his career best at age 31. His string of dream seasons extended from 31-36 years of age. He steeply declined with the advent of the steroid policy. Draw your own conclusions.

Newton wrote this in a Notes From Nowhere thread regarding the Bonds/steroids issue; it brought to mind something I just recently read at The Hardball Times by David Gassko.

His argument is that when you look deeper into Sammy's numbers, the huge spike in homeruns in 1998 is not that surprising. It is very interesting, check it out.

Mike Green - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 04:43 PM EST (#142093) #
Here is what I wrote about Sosa before last season. It wasn't simply the power spike at age 29. Everything peaked, as you can see. That does not happen too often. Whether it was steroids, corking or just late development (like Jason Giambi...OK, bad example...how about Jose Cruz Jr.?), I still would rather have Dwight Evans out there than him.
Waveburner - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 07:38 PM EST (#142128) #
Bonds is self-absorbed jackass, no news. Bonds took a crapload of steroids and lied about it-well duh. Anyone who was naive enough to think Bonds didn't take steroids and other drugs is an imbecile as far as I'm concerned. Changing the record books wouldn't accomplish much IMO. People will always have their own opinions. I had no respect for Bonds before the BALCO thing and if possible I suppose I have even less now (He even treats his friends like he does the press? I have a feeling he's going to one lonely-as-hell 70 year old man in the future). As for comparing musicians on mind-altering drugs to athletes on body-enhancing ones, I can't see the connection there myself. Both are certainly self-destructive, but mind-altering drugs are not proven to give a human being an increased capacity to write songs, poetry, etc. Certain eccentric artists, musicians, scientists, etc have used them, but you'd have a hard time convincing anyone definitively that the drugs enhanced their ability write/think/etc. With steroids and other such drugs, there are no doubts about their ability to physically enhance the human body. It just comes at great personal risk.
Cristian - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 07:47 PM EST (#142132) #
mind-altering drugs are not proven to give a human being an increased capacity to write songs, poetry, etc.

You're on drugs if you don't think certain mind altering drugs help the creative process. Of course, if you were on drugs you wouldn't make the argument in the first place. You see the logical quandary? I'm going to go smoke something and I'll get back to you with a solution.

Willy - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 07:50 PM EST (#142133) #
I have no idea what a ‘holy writer’ is, nor even if anything specific is being referred to; but I find it not at all out of place to raise a ‘moral’ objection to Bonds’s drug use. He’s doing it with the intention to deceive us. It’s duplicitous. I go to the ballpark to watch his exploits, believing them to be entirely the result of his natural, unenhanced abilities. And they’re amazing. But then I learn that he’s cheated me, and millions of others, by using several drugs–and lying about having done so. Why the hell can’t that be objected to on ‘moral’ grounds? (Moreover, he makes more in one year for doing this than any of us will make in our entire lifetimes.)

Was he using the drugs “to win” (and that makes it O.K. within the context of professional sport?), or to pad his stats and smooth his way into the HOF? I don’t know, and nor do you. But it taints Bonds’s record; and it taints the sport. How it can be defended is beyond me.

(FWIW, I can see no pertinant analogies between Bonds's situation, and our response to it, and any 'rock stars' plight.)
koanhead - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 07:58 PM EST (#142137) #
Steroids, HGH, amphetamines, caffeine, tobacco, creatine, the third baseman grabbing the runner's belt ... whatever. I like Barry Bonds. And Little Napoleon, good old John McGraw is one of my favourites from baseball history.

Ain't none of it going to stop me from watching baseball games. Why? Because, as someone mentioned earlier, it ain't scripted. You just don't know. I just finished watching two of the best ball games I've seen in a long time. Man, did we whup some Yankee ass!
Anders - Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 08:06 PM EST (#142138) #
If one assumes--with no evidence either way--that Kevin Mench was juiced when his come-backer fractured Holliday's tibia, this could be considered an instance of steroid use putting at risk the lives of others--the same blow to the nose or temple might easily have killed Roy. Maybe steroids in the hands (systems) of major leaguers are as dangerous as aluminum bats.

This is not a very good comparison. Any hitter can hit a pitch back through the box and hit the pitcher - it happened to my friend playing bantam baseball in Toronto. They now don't (mostly I think) use aluminum bats now. It could have happened without the aluminum bat, or with or without steroids. Shining/scratching/spitting a ball to cause it to spin wildly is just plain dangerous - Ray Chapman died because of it (well, mostly.)

GeoffAtMac - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 08:10 AM EST (#142168) #

I have a question for anyone who can answer it: Who is Cory Patton, and why have the Blue Jays put him on their 40-man roster?

I see we drafted him in the sixth round of the '04 draft, but I don't see why he has to be protected today.

Gerry - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 09:05 AM EST (#142171) #
Where did you get that information? Sounds like a mistake to me.
Named For Hank - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 11:03 AM EST (#142176) #
What's with the remark about Theodore's "masking agent"? He was approved the drug for therapeutic use, and by all accounts, for a very long time. If you see a spike in Propecia users, then maybe you have a point.

I'm not talking about Theodore's use of it, I'm talking about the fact that it brought to light a ridiculous aspect of the NHL's drug testing policy: that it is only an offense to be caught using a steroid, and it is not illegal to be caught using an agent that would mask your steroid use. That is a ludicrous policy that clearly shows that the NHL does not want to catch cheaters.

But, Dick Pound, with his big mouth, ought to take it all back now.

I am assuming that you read the spin that others put on Pound's words and not his words themselves. Having read the original interview and heard the follow-up radio interview, it is very clear that Pound's number is primarily amphetamines and other similar stimulants, and that he got his numbers from NHL trainers and team doctors.

You had, what, 300 NHL players that were subjected to Olympic testing, and you caught two, one of which was known.

Anyone who knows they're going to be tested because they're on a preliminary Olympic roster and who continues to use whatever it is they're using is a moron. Most of this stuff does not linger in the body, particularly not the stimulants Pound was discussing.

I'm not going to stop watching anything -- mostly I find it funny that the drug testing policies are designed not to catch anyone. They should just be honest and say they're not interested in testing for these things because they like the game the way it is.
Ryan Day - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 11:56 AM EST (#142179) #
I've made this point elsewhere, but I find it appropriate to repeat. Why do we need the "cleanliness is next to godliness" approach with baseball, but not with rock and roll?

Because professional sports and music are two very different things.

People like music because of the talent and skill involved. Mostly, they don't care about what goes on behind that. It's totally the end result - no one who buys Britney Spears albums really cares that she doesn't write her own songs and that her voice gets improved through studio manipulation. Similarly, very few people care about how Lennon got his inspiration - they just care if the music is any good.

Professional sports, on the other hand, is largely marketed on competition. It's fair play and sportsmanship, at least theoretically. To be totally cliche, it's not just whether you win or lose - it's how you play the game. People want to believe that a baseball game is about players trying their best, making the most of their natural skill.

When someone cheats - whether corked bat, sandpaper in the glove, or steroids - that illusion is broken. You no longer have a level playing field. You're no longer selling a game, but a performance propped up by external factors.

John Northey - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 12:59 PM EST (#142180) #
When someone cheats - whether corked bat, sandpaper in the glove, or steroids - that illusion is broken. You no longer have a level playing field. You're no longer selling a game, but a performance propped up by external factors. Good point Ryan. To me the question is what is an external factor, and how much of them are you willing to accept? Me, I have a high level that I'll accept. Some have a low level.

Items I accept that others fight against....

  • Steroids and other performance enhancing drugs - leave it to the cops to arrest people using illegal ones
  • Disparities in revenue/payroll between teams - if the Yankees have millions more fans than the Royals, they should be allowed to spend it however they choose
Items I fight that others accept...
  • Pete Rose and other gamblers such as Shoeless Joe
  • Teams having exclusive rights to a region (there should be more teams in NY for example, and if someone wants to move another team to Toronto to compete with the Jays, so be it)
  • Teams getting millions from their local cities to build new parks
All these items can be viewed as an external factor affecting the end competition (the cities paying for the park gives more cash to the local team, an unfair advantage plus it forces non-baseball fans to pay).

In the end it is all about what we each view as acceptable manipulation of the game. Some will fight to the death over the Wild Card, others Interleague play, and many over steroids. So be it. To me it is now time to sit back, enjoy the WBC and get ready for a Jay playoff run.

TangoTiger - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 02:13 PM EST (#142185) #
I agree with John much more than Ryan. When Ryan says:

"It's fair play and sportsmanship, at least theoretically. To be totally cliche, it's not just whether you win or lose - it's how you play the game. ..."

That's my point. That some people want this utopia, but there's no reason for them to expect it from MLB, NHL, Soccer, etc. "Winning is the only thing" is a mantra that most atheletes follow. The "fair play" motto is for little league. If that's what you want, that's where you'll find it. (Maybe.)

We are but mere spectators. And you vote with your wallet. That's all you can do.
Mike Green - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 02:45 PM EST (#142188) #
What Pete Rose is accused of (betting on his team to win) does not impede fair competition in the way that taking performance enhancing drugs does. Betting against one's own team or throwing a game is, of course, an entirely different matter.

If one is going to be cynical about the whole thing (and I am not suggesting that one should be), I don't understand why lesser conduct is impugned while more serious conduct is considered to be part of the package of being a pro sports fan.
Ryan Day - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 03:25 PM EST (#142192) #
If nothing else, I think fans want the appearance that things are level, and they want to feel like things are being done to ensure it.

It's true that fans aren't going to personally investigate players' drug use; they don't care that much. But once allegations start cropping up that there is a drug problem, they want something to be done about it. They want the appearance that MLB cares that the Yankees spend more than the Royals (in part because some can't accept their team is badly run). In large part, MLB bans gambling - whether it's on your own team or not - because that's where the appearance of impropriety arises. And while every fan has their idea of what is and isn't acceptable, there's definitely a general tolerance level that shouldn't be crossed.

Sure, some of this is shallow and hypocritical. It's sort of "don't ask, don't tell," and sure, it's more of a sin to be caught, or suspected, than to do it in the first place. But that's basic PR for you.

If Bud Selig were to hold a press conference tomorrow and announce that MLB was perfectly okay with players using whatever substances they liked, you would see an attendance drop, because that's doesn't match the perception of the game they believe in and pay for.

TangoTiger - Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 04:22 PM EST (#142193) #
If the NHLPA says that their players are not using drugs and therefore no drug-testing is required, and if the commissioner says the same thing, people would *still* go to see the games. Outright encouragement (as your test case is showing) is one thing. But, an assurance that all is fine is something that would not drive down attendance.

And, in fact, that was what the NHL and NHLPA did for the longest time.

I agree with you that it is a perception issue, and not a morality issue. People just want to know what the playing field is, and then they, by themselves, will make up their own minds. As it should be. It's the Holy Writers who are telling us what the playing field should be, and how we should react.

Everyone was fully aware of BALCO and the grand jury testimony, and the "I don't know what was in that stuff" statements. And still they went to see Bonds like there was no tomorrow.

No one should presume how 50,000,000 baseball fans will react. And it's irrelevant, to us, how they will react. Whether we are left with 1 million fans, or we get to 100 million, makes zero difference to us. The only ones who should care are the players and owners. It's their mess.
Keith Talent - Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 09:29 AM EST (#142263) #
Replying to no one in particular, I have to clear up a few points:

1. Pete Rose betting on his own team to win is equal to betting on his own team to lose. How can you be certain he didn't rest certain guys on a Friday evening game to have them fresh for a "money" Saturday game? How can we even be certain that he didn't bet on his own team to lose?

2. The opinion that steroid-stained records shouldn't be scrutinized because steroids weren't banned by MLB when the records were broken is hogwash. Steroids are illegal in society. It's like saying a player can't be tossed out of MLB for murdering an opposing pitcher because murder isn't banned by MLB.
Mike D - Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 11:58 AM EST (#142265) #
Obviously, murder isn't equivalent to performance enhancement, but in my view Keith Talent's point #2 is right. If the argument for use at the time was really "baseball permits/doesn't prohibit it," then why were steroid users clandestine about it? Why didn't they just admit what they were doing?

And why has not one single player used the excuse, "Hey, it wasn't against the rules of baseball?" Only the most ardent apologists have made this after-the-fact argument. It's because it was cheating. Of course it was cheating. Every steroid cheater knew they were cheating.
jgadfly - Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 12:09 PM EST (#142269) #
To No One in Particular...
?'s that just occurred to me...if Secretariat is on "horse steroids" and breaks Northern Dancer's record in the Kentucky Derby should there be an asterisk beside that record ? FWIW...
And when will some career steroid-free minor leaguer sue MLB for his potential loss of income by not banning the use of illegal drugs and ensuring a level playing field for all ?
And can steroid-free Dustin Hoffman sue Arnold Schwartzen... for not getting the lead role in "the Terminator" ?... Should Arnold be impeached if he used steroids even though he didn't know what they were and if he didn't inhale ?
Ah! Take me out to a ballgame !!! It has been a looong winter !
Nick - Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:52 PM EST (#142540) #
eeleye - Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:36 PM EST (#142550) #
With all this crazy amount of evidence, do you see him cracking and just admitting it?
eeleye - Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 11:45 AM EST (#142584) #
How do I post an image? I want to set up a funny comparison of Barry Bonds in the late 80's to mid-90's, versus the 45 pound heavier Bonds now.
Barry Bonds - Again | 50 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.