When New-York based "Today" went looking for a local sports reporter to defend Barry Bonds the morning after he set the career home run record, it didn't turn to the New York Post, whose headline this morning reads JUNK BONDS: ‘SULTAN OF SYRINGE'. Nor was it likely that the designated hitter would be someone from the Daily News, whose back page screams "King of Shame." Instead, "Today" looked to the New York Times, and in particular to sports writer William Rhoden [pictured here with Matt Lauer], to embrace Bonds.
'TODAY' CO-ANCHOR MATT LAUER: You've been very critical of baseball actually leading up to this milestone for the way they've been wringing their hands trying to figure out what to do with this record. Barry Bonds you wrote, quote, "he will be baseball's king, it's emperor, it's czar." How are you feeling this morning?
NYT SPORTS REPORTER WILLIAM RHODEN: I think it's a great moment, Matt. It really is. It's an historic moment. The number's there, no matter. There's going to continue to be hand-wringing, but there's no hand-wringing in the Bonds household [proving what?] . . . It's just a tremendous accomplishment . . . I don't think anyone doubts that.
View video here.
Fortunately, sports commentator Bob Costas was there to provide balance. In a July episode of his HBO show, Costas' guests were Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling and chemist Patrick Arnold, both of whom expressed the opinion, in which Costas joined, that Bonds had taken steroids. Bonds replied by calling the 5' 6" Costas a "little midget man who knows (nothing) about baseball."
LAUER: You have bristled at the idea he is innocent until proven guilty.
SPORTS COMMENTATOR BOB COSTAS: This "innocent until proven guilty" is an insufferable platitude that is masquerading as high-mindedness, as if those of us who don't withhold all judgment need a remedial course in civics. First of all, this isn't a criminal case. We're not talking about depriving him of his liberty, or for that matter his livelihood. But if for the sake of argument it were a criminal case, you would have more than enough evidence not only to establish that he used performance-enhancing drugs, but to establish that he used them in copious amounts and that he wasn't just assisted but transformed as a player as a result. And you would prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Lauer then brought another Times reporter off the bench to bolster Rhoden, reading from an article today by NYT reporter George Vecsey, who wrote: "Nobody, and certainly not some chemist in a white smock -- swung the bat for Bonds against objects moving 80 or 90 or 100 miles an hour. He had to do that himself, with the superb reflexes he had as a cocky stripling, and the craft he acquired as a smug and enlarged elder."
This is perhaps the most specious argument that has been regularly trotted out in Bonds' defense. Of course steroids don't swing the bat. But they permit the user to swing it harder, turning doubles into home runs. And Vecsey's comment begs the question: just how did Bonds become "enlarged"?
Rhoden never addressed the steroid allegations per se, offering this blanket defense, or better yet, pulling the blanket over his head.
RHODEN: Oh no, he, Matt, he's a great home-run hitter. Period. The end.
The end of what? Rhoden's credibility?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.













Comments Policy
Asterisk
August 8, 2007 - 08:13 ET by P.J. GladnickThey need to put an asterisk by Barry Bond's name in the record books along with the note that his performance was chemically enhanced. Unfortunately the use of steroids is commonly accepted in athletics nowadays. Just look at pics of many athletes nowadays in comparison with those of the past and you can see a definite difference in muscle structure. And that difference is due to steroids.
Agreed. This "broken"
August 8, 2007 - 08:18 ET by sarcasmoAgreed. This "broken" record is the best thing that ever happened to collectors of Hank Aaron memorobilia, because he's still the true all-time champ as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. I have not even looked at eBay or anything before saying this, but mark my words, this will be the consequence in the baseball-crap marketplace...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I'm not a real baseball fan
August 8, 2007 - 08:26 ET by motherbeltI'm not a real baseball fan or follower, but I read and hear news.
And in spite of what goes into the official "record book", (with or without an asterisk), I doubt that anyone will consider Barry Bonds the true record-holder.
Bond is the best ever, get over it
August 8, 2007 - 08:47 ET by dvdaughtrySorry, I just don't buy it--that it was steroids.
He was the best before any allegations, and he was still the best after. No one was feared like this man in MLB history. Take a look at his intentional bases on balls. He has nearly twice as many as Aaron. That doesn't even mention normal BB that were more than likely pitching around him.
Then look at his AB compared to Aaron, and Aaron compared to Ruth. Aaron has 3 thousand more than Bonds and 4 thousand more than Ruth. This takes nothing away from Aaron, but does give some perspective. Aaron simply had more chances.
Lost in this performance enhancment drab is medical advances, year round training, and nutrition. It was the late 80's and 90's that professional athletes stopped having an offseason. Until then, players used spring training to get into shape. Now, they come to spring in shape and are there for reps and timeing, mechanics and release points.
The fact that Bonds in the only one thrown under the bus is also poor. More pitchers have been busted for "steroids" than hitters. Also, mostly everyone that used "steroids" have become worse, not better. Bonds is also not the only MLer to go through a body transformation. I dare you to get a picture of your senior year in college and see the difference.
Steroids never helped anyone put a bat on the ball. Bonds has enough hardware to solidify his place as the best ever before this nonsense.
If he had the personality of Ken Griffey Jr. we wouldn't be having this converstation.
However, the askterisk crowd won't have to live with Bonds very long. Alex Rodriguez will be there soon enough.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
I don't think this is all
August 8, 2007 - 09:05 ET by sarcasmoI don't think this is all about personality, but you do make good points about the advances in training. (Anyone, even back then, with good sense knew about good nutrition!) IIRC, "Nautilus" weight training machines became relatively common in the late '70s and early '80s, and that did have an effect on all sports.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
but you do make good
August 8, 2007 - 09:57 ET by motherbeltbut you do make good points about the advances in training.
I don't know if Sylvester Stallone ever used steroids, but there is an amazing difference if you look at him in "Rocky" and then his physique in the later sequels and the "First Blood" movies. I admit don't know enough about training and muscle-building to make a decision on that, for Stallone or Bonds. Has he been tested for steroids? If he has and has come up "clean" I guess that would have to be accepted. Unless they plan to ban any and all nutrients.
But I do know that some will never accept any explanation, so the controversy will remain.
The Aussies seem to be a
August 8, 2007 - 10:22 ET by sarcasmoThe Aussies seem to be a bit suspicious of Sly...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
As a life-long
August 8, 2007 - 09:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberAs a life-long Pittsburgher, Barry Bonds can never be forgiven for allowing Sid "No Knees" Bream score from second on a single in the 1992 championship series, October 17th, game 7, 9th inning. Had his throw not gone up the 3rd-base line 20 feet, the Pirates would have been in the World Series, and it might have reversed 15 straight losing seasons that the Succos have put their city and fans through. Bonds capped his career as a Pirate by batting .191 and 1 homer in his three post-seasons here. That is how Bonds will be remembered by many here in the Burgh.
Lifer
August 8, 2007 - 09:31 ET by dvdaughtry...in his three post-seasons here. That is how Bonds will be remembered by many here in the Burgh.
Three post seasons in Pittsburg? That is HOF credentials alone!
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Haha. Actually, there
August 8, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberHaha.
Actually, there were spme seriously-good ballplayers on those teams:
Doug Drabek, Barry Bonds, Bobby Bonilla, Andy Van Slyke, Denny Neagle, Zane Smith, Bob Walk, Tim Wakefield, Don Slaught, Jay Bell, Jose Lind...
Bonds used to frustrate me. He was MVP in 1990 and 1992 (should have been in 1991, too, but somehow Terry Pendleton won it, mostly because he wasn't an ass like Bonds was), and Bonds was always a great player. But he was also an arrogant ass, full of himself, and hated Pittsburgh. It is hard to like a guy, regardless of how successful he is, if he is a real tool, ya know?
Sid Bream
August 8, 2007 - 11:45 ET by Mike LesterI was three rows behind first base dugout and I still don't know how he scored.
-born / raised Atlantan and '69 Braves batboy
It was bang bang wasn't it?
August 8, 2007 - 11:51 ET by dvdaughtryIt was bang bang wasn't it? Could have gone either way?
I have to rely on the reply.
You Braves fans have been so spoiled since.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Amazing how the fortunes of
August 8, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Roger the ShrubberAmazing how the fortunes of those two teams have gone in opposite directions since 1992 (not counting 2007):
Winning percentage: Succos: 44%, Braves:: 60%
Losing Seasons: Succos 14 (abuot to be 15), Braves: 0
Division Titles: Succos: 0, Braves: 12
World Series appearances: Succos 0, Braves: 4
2007 records: Succos (45-64), Braves (60-53)
Damn you, Fransisco Cabrera!
Look at the Statistics
August 8, 2007 - 09:52 ET by PopularTechYou have to do no more than look at the statistics.
Bonds started to slump in 1998 with 37 HRs. After seeing McGuire break Marris's record he then decided to start using Steroids in 1999 with 34 HRs but his season was cut short with an elbow injury due to the Steroid use. He came back in 2000 with 49 HRs and an insane 73 HRs in 2001. Followed by 46 HRs in 2002, 45 HRs in 2003 and 45 HRs in 2004. MLB drastically changes their Steroid testing in 2005 and Bonds conviently gets injured hitting only 5 HRs. With the new Steroid testing in place he hits only 26 HRs in 2006? Come on. Without Steroids Bonds would simply have been a great player not the best and that is why it matters.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Yeah, look at the numbers
August 8, 2007 - 10:06 ET by dvdaughtry...in 1999 with 34 HRs but his season was cut short with an elbow injury due to the Steroid use
And you know his injury was steroid realated how?
... in 2005 and Bonds conviently gets injured hitting only 5 HRs
He sat out a season for a knee that had bothered him for years.
....he hits only 26 HRs in 2006
26 HR in 130 games 367 AB and 115 BB
Bonds walks so much he doesn't get a chance to swing the bat. They would walk Bonds to get to Ruth.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Nice Try
August 8, 2007 - 10:15 ET by PopularTechWe know the 1999 elbow injury was steroid related based on testimony from his ex-girlfriend.
2005 - When you stop taking Steroids it makes it much harder to recover from injuries.
In 2006 he hit 26 HRS with 115 walks.
In 2001 he hit 73 HRs with 177 walks.
In 2004 he hit 45 HRs with 232 walks.
Sorry but your excuse doesn't fly.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I don't credit your sources
August 8, 2007 - 10:37 ET by dvdaughtrySI and his girl friend are not credible sources.
You don't like him, and you don't know what he took, or when he took it, and neither does SI or his girlfriend.
He's never failed a test and performed his whole career.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
SI's source seems to be
August 8, 2007 - 10:46 ET by sarcasmoSI's source seems to be grand jury testimony. Granted, it was leaked illegally, but it seems relatively unimpeachable, if only because liars in that forum know they risk incarceration and probably assumed before the leak that they were relatively anonymous...And I may not know which steroids Barry took, but I think it's safe to say I know whatever he did late in his career to get that-big wasn't all-natural.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Keep making excuses
August 8, 2007 - 10:53 ET by PopularTechUnfortunately there is not some big conspiracy between his ex-girlfriend, his ex-trainer, Balco, the authors of Game of Shadows, Sports Illustrated, the FDA and everyone else involved in this just to get Barry Bonds.
Keep believing his lies because it will be embarrassing when he is indicted.
He never failed a test because he was taking substances that were not being tested for and yeah he performed his whole career after 1999 on banned substances.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I was a kid in New York
August 8, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Gat New YorkI was a kid in New York when everyone had Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays gloves. Unlike everyone else I owned a Hank Aaron glove. I liked the way he hit - his style - his power - and the way he played the outfield. I admired the strength, class, and courage he hid behind his quiet demeanor.
I was old enough to remember Maris' quest for 61 homeruns and the troubles he had. Aaron went through even more troubles - much more. Aaron was a Black baseball player when bigotry was still prevalent in the stands, in the clubhouse, and in the cities he traveled to. He achieved his record against enormous pressure and threats throughout his career.
What has Barry Bonds done? He cheated. The criticism Bonds has received is of his own doing and has nothing to do with ability and talent.
There has always been something very pure and natural about baseball’s 2 homerun records. It has been about one man and his natural ability to achieve such a momentous record.Barry Bonds (and the rest of his steroid buddies) has stolen that purity from baseball and from all of us. He cheated and his so-called records will forever be tainted and reviled.
Hank Aaron still is the moral voice of baseball and he speaks for nearly all of us. Bonds may have attained the record, but he will never have the respect associated with that record and that will be his asterisk - his punishment.
If Bonds gets an asterisk, so should...
August 8, 2007 - 14:42 ET by L.N. SmitheeIf Bonds gets an asterisk, so should the following figures:
Seems like Selig's memory is just as faulty as Bonds' and Palmeiro's, doesn't it? Yet he's the one on the crusade to nail Bonds as if the entire 'Roids era didn't happen under his lengthening nose.
"Hey, I've got nothing against the press...they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true..." -- Joe Jackson, "Sunday Papers"
The Difference
August 8, 2007 - 20:32 ET by PopularTechPerry and Sutton both got caught and punished as they were ejected and suspended. Using Steroids is a worse offense. Palmeiro is a guilty as Bonds as is McGuire. All three should get astericks, if not have their records removed completely.
Bonds is getting hammered because of his arrogance and the records he is breaking. And he deserves it.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
}}---> While we're at it
August 8, 2007 - 08:34 ET by Cool ArrowAn asterisk attaches to every Super Bowl in which Lyle Alzado participated.
We also need to chip away at the single season records of Sosa MaGwire, and Bonds to make sure the real record stays with our generation's own Roger Maris. Come to think of it, how many games did it take him?
Oh, yes, we definitely need to put an asterisk next to Maris. Also we need an asterisk after the guy who got into the Hall of Fame in place of Pete Rose.
It's a game. A game that left us years ago. How many Americans made the All Star first team this year? Are they just taking jobs Americans won't do?
Speaking of
August 8, 2007 - 09:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberSpeaking of asterisks...
Every record needs to be
August 8, 2007 - 09:21 ET by NewsbusterbrownEvery record needs to be questioned, because they were all created based on their era's context. Would a (white) Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth have been able to hit anywhere near 700 homers during the Deadball Era? Does anyone think that Cy Young could win over 500 games if he had started his career twenty years ago or Old Hoss Radbourn could win 59 in a season in 2007?
Ty Cobb would never have had multiple .400 seasons today, while a Steve Garvey would never have had a 1.000 fielding percentage for a season if he had played during the 19th century.
This is why I don't follow records the way that I used to as a kid, because, in a way, they are all "tainted." Unless you consider the environment each record was created within, they are all suspect.
Maris didn't cheat
August 8, 2007 - 20:40 ET by PopularTechMaris didn't cheat therefore his record is legitimate based on the rules of his era. The complaint with Maris was on how many he hit in so many games compared to Ruth since Marris played in an extended season. The solution is simple, have a separate record of most HRs in a season and most HRs in a season with X amount of games played, Problem Solved.
If there is evidence Lyle Alzado used Steroids then all his records need an asterick too. Sorry cheaters should not be honored but nothing should be taken away from his teammates who did not cheat.
This isn't about generations records. This is about cheating to break them.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
A question
August 8, 2007 - 08:35 ET by HelenSIf Hank Aaron won and held the title against players who were as lilly pure and on the up-and-up as himself, he won it fair and square and on equal terms.
Barry Bonds won the title away from him. He won it, using steroids and playing against players who also probably use steroids. Fair and square and on equal terms.
Why the agonizing and hand-wringing? If he had won it agains a field of steroid-free players, then it would have been unfair but he was playing agains guys of equal pollution or whatever other perjorative you want to slap on them.
As P.J.Gladnick said in the first post above: "Unfortunately the use of steroids is commonly accepted in athletics nowadays."
(In case it is not painfully obvious, I know absolutely nothing about sports. I have no agenda and no emotional investment in any team, sport, or individual.)
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Just as his continued
August 8, 2007 - 08:43 ET by sarcasmoJust as his continued growth in his late 30s made me think that Mr. Bonds probably cheats, I don't think all of his competition in baseball cheats, so it's not in any way fair & square IMO. In my eyes, naturally, steroids look a lot like the continual failure of the credibility of government's entire well-funded PR-machine when it comes to the tax and spend drugwar.
I mean, in the case of anabolic steroids we're talkin' "side effects" -- and pardon my language -- on the balls. (!) Speaking as a former highschool athlete, albeit nothing like a star, I can say that negative effects of any sort on the testicles are much feared by male high school athletes. Somehow, despite this cross-my-legs fact, they've never seemed to come up with a way of getting this point across effectively, and Jose' Canseco is rightly-seen as more honest than the government WRT the issue. Oh well.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> yo sarc
August 8, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Cool ArrowTake a look at "The Big Hurt" Frank Thomas. He's gotta have the biggest head in baseball. Who's pointing the finger at him.
Well, that's another thing,
August 8, 2007 - 09:00 ET by sarcasmoWell, that's another thing, does widespread use really taint everyone in the end? Maybe so, maybe not. At my highschool in the late '70s steroid use among athletes happened a lot, but IMO the best athletes didn't ever take them (and I never tried 'em either, but I wasn't that great of an athlete!). Anyway, the Balko case does point out certain truths about grand juries which lawyers & judges really would prefer that we not-think-about, IMO. That makes it extra-fun!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Good call Arrow
August 8, 2007 - 09:03 ET by dvdaughtryWhat about Clemens?
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Something strange about the rush to idolize him.
August 8, 2007 - 08:58 ET by Blogger Guy00001Really strange, how some of the major media outlets are obsessing over this. The Hartford Courant had it all over its front page today, meaning that it was the biggest news story - more important than the murders at Your Black Muslim Bakery.
We know Barry used and it
August 8, 2007 - 09:08 ET by Airforce_5_OWe know Barry used and it helped him in this pursiut.
Let him have his day in the sun no matter that he cheated. It want stand.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
IT COUNTS!!!
August 8, 2007 - 09:10 ET by DRM 23I apologize in advance for being a Bonds fan. Did Barry "juice"? There is probably no doubt that he did, but he hit every homerun without breaking any of the rules of baseball. It counts!!!
Ahh now were getting it
August 8, 2007 - 09:18 ET by dvdaughtryHard to cheat when there is not a rule to break. However, if what he used was in deed illegal, let me be the first to say he had bigger problems than a controversy and lock him up.
MLB is to blame for the controversy, but they know what everyone else knows...
Chicks dig the long ball.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
He Did Break the Rules
August 8, 2007 - 09:39 ET by PopularTechMAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL - Drug Policy and Prevention Program (1997)
"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club also may take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.
This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."
Bonds not only broke the rules he insulted the Game and the Fans by doing so.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
You are certain?
August 8, 2007 - 09:56 ET by dvdaughtryHe used steriods in the defination that it is used in the rule cited?
Dude, there are countless "performance enhancers". Anabolic Steriods is just one.
However, if you are using steriods as an umbrella term, then you may have a point.
He has never failed a test. Remember that.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Yes he used Banned Substances
August 8, 2007 - 10:03 ET by PopularTechYes he was using banned substances and he did not use just one. He used many and specifically used ones that would beat the testing methods being used. Which is why he never failed a test. They did not have tests for what he was taking.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Baseball and it's fans have
August 8, 2007 - 10:37 ET by DRM 23Baseball and it's fans have been insulted so many times in the past, that it will make your head spin. It has never been the pure game that it is made out to be. The Black Socks scandal, to Pete Rose, to the strikes, and many players that have been caught numerous times with drugs. Barry took the steriods, but baseball reminds me of Dr. Frankenstein.....look at this great creation of mine.....and then later does all it can do to get away from it. The media seems to all be saying that Bonds is not a good person. Welcome to the real world, where the guy we root for doesn't always win.
A Game Of Inches, Not Injections
August 8, 2007 - 12:42 ET by stratmanThe game is "pure", the people are not. All those you referenced were punished by Baseball for their egregious ways.
Baseball rewards a winner but that does not make it a Dr. Frankenstien. Players choose of their own selfish accord to behave criminally or against the rules/spirit of the game.
It is the spirit of the game, the following of the rules, that fans admire at its core. While winning makes fans feel good, a cheater always makes a true fan saddened and at times angered.
An example: Brushback pitches are acceptable parts of the game. Occasionally hitting a batter can be an acceptable part of the game, though ejection will follow if malice of forethought is suspected. Hitting a batter to injure them, especially head shots, will never be acceptable and should anger all fans as this is neither following the rules nor spirit of the game.
Respect for the spirit of the game, respect for the rules of the game, personal effort and teamwork are what define the core of Baseball.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Politics and marriage were
August 9, 2007 - 11:13 ET by DRM 23Politics and marriage were probably both pure at the start also. People made them the way they are now. If a player in your hometown in hitting homeruns, I'm guessing you will stand and cheer. I was in Baltimore a couple years ago for an interleague game between San Fran and the Orioles. Bonds was booed big time when he came to bat, but when he hit the homerun the place went wild. Palmiero also hit a homer in that game...the only time 2 player with 500 lifetime homers hit one in the same game. Nobody seemed to care.
Apples And Oranges
August 9, 2007 - 13:04 ET by stratmanPolitics and marriage are for adults. Each can be construed as constructs to perform what otherwise would be considered questionable acts outside of their domains - politicians taking money from constituents (legalized robbery) and married people having sex and children.
Baseball, on the otherhand, was not created to fullfill a person's desire to bypass society's rules. Think of baseball in its more pure form - little league and sandlot pickup games. Cheaters are dealt with swiftly and sternly - you're out of the game and everyone knows your shame.
Yes, people will admire and celebrate accomplishments, particularly spectacular ones like homeruns. And people want to see excitement in the games, which usually equates to hits and runs. But people will differentiate at the end of the proverbial day that the spectacle that Bonds brings to the game is tainted by cheating, and their lasting impresion is tempered rightly by the fact he undermined the beauty and spirit of the game for selfish gain. He also adds to the corruption of youth who emulate him as a role model for success via dangerous and illicit methods.
We wouldn't condone what politicians and married people as adults do if children were to do likewise. We also would not condone illicit drug use for performance enhancement in children. Since the rules of Baseball state no illicit drug use allowed, why should we turn a blind eye to Bonds and his records?
No one likes a line cutter but they tolerate it at the time, at least for a while, and will remember that individual for their selfish act. Barry Bonds cut in line and only remains because people continue to monetarily support him and those that enable him. The public remembers this too. A tipping point will be reached one day and either baseball will be forced to crackdown hard on violators or the rules will be changed to allow these behaviors. In the meantime, Bonds' record deserves the asterisk.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
How anyone can be a fan of
August 8, 2007 - 10:40 ET by balboaHow anyone can be a fan of such a self-absorbed jerk is beyond me. He's got the record, but I think he took performance enhancing drugs. A few years down the road A-Rod will break the record anyway. (another jerk)
Why A-Rod
August 8, 2007 - 10:45 ET by dvdaughtryNot trying to stir the pot: why is ARod a jerk?
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Actually, I don't know that
August 8, 2007 - 11:06 ET by balboaActually, I don't know that he's a jerk in the Bonds way, he's just not my kind of ballplayer. But take for instance when he clapped his hands and yelled "I got it!" during that fly ball a few weeks ago, his wife wearing the f--- off T-shirt, not to mention his being photographed with strippers. Let's just say that Derek Jeter is more the kind of Yankee I admire.
Noted. I have to agree.
August 8, 2007 - 11:10 ET by dvdaughtryNoted. I have to agree. Jeter is a worthy heir to the legends of the New York Yankees.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
I think that the fact that
August 8, 2007 - 12:08 ET by DRM 23I think that the fact that Bonds may be a jerk, bothers people more than the cheating. If it were a well liked player being linked it would not be as much of a controversy. Yes, it would still be one...just not as big a deal. I have friends that hate Bonds and ask me" what kind of an example is he sitting for kids." Meanwhile my friends are letting their kids watch wrestling and wear Jimmy Johnson Nascar hats. [his crew chief has been caught cheating several times]. Make sure that every hero you have is held to the same standards. Jerk or not.
The Truth About Barry Bonds and Steroids
August 8, 2007 - 09:28 ET by PopularTech* The Truth About Barry Bonds and Steroids (Sports Illustrated)
"Bonds himself had never used a performance enhancer more potent than a protein shake from the health-food store. But as the 1998 season unfolded and, as he watched Mark McGwire take over the game -- his game -- Barry Bonds decided that he, too, would begin using what he called "the s---."
Barry Bonds is a disgrace to baseball, as is McGuire and every other player who cheated.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
}}---> Steroids
August 8, 2007 - 09:35 ET by Cool ArrowLet's investigate all these women who synthetically enhance their breasts with implants.
I'll volunteer to do the inspecting and publish my findings. . .eventually.
Don't tell
August 8, 2007 - 09:53 ET by dvdaughtryI will be your assistant if we can keep it away from my wife...
But synthetics caught my eye in regards to Randy Johnson and his problematic knee.
The Big Unit gets shots of that lubricant when his knee becomes a little creeky. It feels like new for a short time and when it wears off he gets another round.
If the argument is the "performence enhancers" give an unfair advantage, then where does procedures like the one above, Tommy John surgery fit into the mix? These are hardly natural procedures and prolonged two careers of two HOF.
Did John Smoltz have an unfair advantage over Sandy Koufax? What if Mantle played in the age of medicine that can totally repair a knee in under a year? What about corrective lenses that take away stadium glare, Lasik that give 20/15 vision?
Where do we stop? and why does performance enhancers get such a bad rap for people that are paid to perform?
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Performance Enhancers and Banned Substances
August 8, 2007 - 10:08 ET by PopularTechAnyone who broke the rules set out by the MLB cheated PERIOD. Barry Bonds blatantly and repeatedly used banned substances that violated the MLB Drug Policy. Taking advantage of legal medical care or comparing the differences in eras has nothing to do with violating the rules of that era.
We stop at violating the rules of MLB for that era. It is not complicated.
I don't understand those so quick to endorse cheating and accepting of it. It is an embarrassment.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Your confusing repair with
August 8, 2007 - 12:53 ET by stratmanYour confusing repair with enhancement. The players still need to go through a tough period of rehabilitation that they must word hard to accomplish. There are no shortcuts in this respect.
And using steroids illicitly to "repair" injury is enhancing an otherwise natural process determined by hard work and tincture of time. Illicit steroids are a shortcut; they are a betrayal of the spirit and rules of the game.
The biggest question is whether you believe in rules or not. The next question is where do you draw the line with the rules.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Not my point
August 8, 2007 - 13:14 ET by dvdaughtrymy point here is that there is an unfair advantage from playing today than yesterday because of medical advances.
Whats natrual about the surgery? John Smoltz is not a HOF with out Tommy John.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Nothing's natural about
August 8, 2007 - 14:10 ET by sarcasmoNothing's natural about surgery, and various things we've discussed make today far different from either the yesterday of Hank Aaron or the yesteryear of Babe Ruth. I don't think people would mind if Barry had used small doses of steroids under the supervision of a real doctor to speed the healing of injuries, and AFAIK that's legal.
What happened here, if we're to believe the SI article from the leaked material, is far different. IMO this was -- unlike going to a doctor -- cheating. Overuse of steroids is very dangerous, both to the user and those around the user. The term "'roid rage" wasn't coined by accident. If you think about it, of all drugs that present an argument for control by prescription, the best one or one of the best is probably some of the various classes of steroids.
I know the argument sounds funny from me (and please, let's not start down that path much today, as I don't have the time, even though I'm now stupidly mentioning it) but one would think the advocates of tough laws against drugs which are far-less-proven to be associated with aggression would also be advocating greater government control over this, of all categories of drugs. For some reason, though, ever since my witnessing steriod-filled high school athletes (bad effects, IMO) I've instead seen both the authorities and most political types almost-totally ignoring the issue, while athletes got comically bloated. It seemed, both in high school and later as an adult even-more, as if a wilful blind eye was being turned to obvious over-use of these substances, and NOT just by Barry Bonds. It was/is pervasive in various sports.
The blind eye from the authorities always struck me as weird, until -- that is -- I followed the money a few years ago...Big pharmaceutical companies which are big political donors spent a couple of very-profitable decades selling WAY more animal-grade steroids than vets could possibly have been using on horses & other animals, and it was a big-ass profit center for them. And this was despite the proven association with violence from use/over-use of these substances!!
Needless to say, big pharma wasn't the only motivated group (team owners wanted homers to fill the seats, and they tend to be big political donors, too) but it became obvious that the various groups were working toward a common end: Lax enforcement of what few laws there were on steroids they manufacture/use, and this asterisk is but the latest obvious result.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Just Say No To The Bionic Man
August 8, 2007 - 15:42 ET by stratmanNothing is natural about Tommy John surgery. Nothing is natural about giving an antibiotic for strept throat either. But these are acceptable interventions as dictated by the rules because they do not confer ability beyond which one had to begin with. If surgery or some other medicament confers abilites beyond which one ordinarily had at baseline then that is a cheat.
Of course there are always exceptions to that dictate: corrective eye surgery, hearing aides, etc. These, though, may be seen as merely correcting to "normal" and not unfairly enhancing above and beyond normal abilities for the player himself or all players league-wide.
An example: Jim Abbott was born with one hand. He pitched a 4-0 no hitter against Cleveland while a Yankee. Abbott could have played with a prosthetic hand but declined. If he had used a prosthetic that allowed him some advantage over other players, say better batting, fielding or throwing because of its design, then that prosthetic would be considered a cheat and not be allowed. Same thing applies in the world of professional golf with clubs, balls and yardage scopes. Everyone could use them but it is considered against the spirit/rules of the game as we know it today.
What is allowable in the future is not of concern today. What happened in era's past stands on its own. The construct is that everyone was playing by the same rules and therefore is a measure of success or failure based upon their peers, although some will stand out as giants even in future generations (Cobb, Young, Ruth, DiMaggio, Aaron, etc). If Bonds took illicit substances or contravened the rules of the game, then he deserves derision and an asterix in the record's book if his name is to appear in any context. It is his "scarlet letter" to bear.
Bypassing the acceptable practices and principles of the game (and Medicine) in order to heal one's self faster as well as gain advantage that said illicit drug confers does circumvent the natural (and accepted) ability to heal or improve one's function. It is a cheat of diligence and hard work. Such shortcuts are not allowed by the rules of the game and are in opposition to the spirit of the game.
Going outside the rules and spirit of the game is the focus of my argument. Comparing players of the present with those of the past is mere speculation and irrelevant to a discussion of cheating by Bonds.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Ahh, the old attack on Bonds for 25 years of MLB juiced up games
August 8, 2007 - 09:38 ET by xfastAnyone who wants an asterisk beside Bonds' record either needs to put an asterisk beside everything in baseball for the last 25 years or shove that asterisk up their rear.
The league knew performance enhancing drugs from steroids to amphetemine was widely used, yet they stuck their head in the sand until the problem took a big dump right on their face. To try and pin the whole issue on Bonds because he broke a homerun record is total BS because if Bonds wouldn't have touched the single season record or the all time record, nobody would have given a rats a** even if he would have used double the amount of juice.
So while I don't care for Bonds personally, I do feel he should be honored by the league of juicers he has played in since the 80's.
You need to prove it
August 8, 2007 - 09:56 ET by PopularTechIf you can prove any other player took Steroids with the overwhelming evidence that shows Bonds did then yes those statistics would need an asterisk also.
Dismissing the league's pathetic Steroid testing policy does not excuse the fact that Bond's cheated.
The whole issue is pinned on Bonds because he is the one breaking records that he would not have been able to without the Steroids.
He can be honored in the hall of shame where he belongs.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I would think that a grown
August 8, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Chidi NwachukhuI would think that a grown man's feet going up multiple sizes combined with Bonds' increasing hat size is the only evidence you need to definitively prove that he has used HGH. It is not possible for an adult's shoe size to change as much as his has, unless he was 16-17 years old.
Not everyone
August 8, 2007 - 10:07 ET by LionKing"... the league of juicers..."
Not everyone in baseball over the last 25 years cheated. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine have never been accused and both are 300 game winners. Ryne Sandberg, IMHO, the greatest all-around second baseman and HOFamer has never been accused.
Unfortunately, other clean players like Fred McGriff and Mark Grace will probably not get into the HOF because they did not have the inflated numbers.
Baseball is a great game and just because MLB has done a poor job of addressing the steroid problem, everyone should not be cast in the same light. There are many decent, hard-working ball players that still respect the game.
[I am no fan of Barry Bonds. Even before the BALCO problems, I was not a fan. That being said, the record is Barry Bonds, like it not. ]
It Wasn't Steroids?
August 8, 2007 - 10:16 ET by Fidel SarcastroI think one could make a cogent argument that Bonds is (was?) one of the game's greatest hitters. His contact numbers back that up. But someone would have to be absolutely out of their skull to argue that his home run stats weren't egregiously inflated by his use of steroids (dvdaughtry - I'm talking to you).
Through the first 7 years of Barry's career (presumably pre-steroidal), he never hit more than 34 home runs. That would put him right in line with the career power stats of the immortal Rob Deer. It took him a full 15 years to match the single season home run level that Mark McGwire hit in his rookie year - 49 (and no, I'm not apologizing for McGwire. I'm just making a correlation).
So it's absolutely ridiculous to try to make the argument that Barry cleanly developed a more potent swing at 37 years old than he had at 27 years old. That's just not a sane proposition. It would be unparalleled in baseball history and contrary to the experience of every othey power hitter since the dawn of mankind.
So I wouldn't take an issue with lumping Bonds in with Molitor, Brett and even Joe D. But he doesn't belong in the same hemisphere as Ruth and Aaron. And don't blame it on his personality (which is admittedly abrasive). Sammy Sosa was universally adored and he's now irrevocably stained by his own steroid scandal. Same for McGwire.
Secondly, did you honestly say "mostly everyone that used "steroids" have become worse, not better"? I think my head just exploded. If that's truly the case, then why do you presume that players take them? Jason Grimsley would have been selling insurance 10 years ago if it hadn't been for steroids. Gary Sheffield would currently be a first base coach for the Akron Areos if it hadn't been a steroids. It turns marginal players into good one and good ones into great ones.
The name of this site is "Newsbusters". It would be a shame if we held non-political debate to a different standard.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
Not a cure all
August 8, 2007 - 10:25 ET by dvdaughtrySteroids are not a cure all. It doesn't make you throw harder, or hit the ball more. The effects of steriods in baseball are at best indirect, because you can train more and for longer.
Skills hit the ball. Bonds has had the most for nearly 20 years now.
It turns marginal players into good one and good ones into great ones.
If Bonds and Sheffield are your cases studies for that claim, then I don't buy it. You realize your picking on two of the most talented hitters in this generation?
Strength does not equal HR. If that were the case Frank Thomas would have 800.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Progress
August 8, 2007 - 10:49 ET by Fidel SarcastroWell, I think we're making progress - you've gone from saying that steroids made no difference (or made players WORSE) to saying that it has an indirect benefit.
But you're still wrong. The benefit is direct and absolute. Steroids and Human Growth Hormones, in addition to expediting physical recovery time, also accelerate the production of ATP, which provides energy bursts that allow a person to accelerate, or create torque from a stationary position. Kinda of like what happens when a batter uncoils from his stance to crush a pitch. There are also studies that say that HGH improves eyesight.
Direct and absolute.
And I used Bonds and Sheffield as examples. I also used Jason Grimsley. Are you going to say that he was one of the greatest pitchers of our generation? But for your benefit, we'll also toss Juan Rincon, Ramon Castro, Rafael Betancourt, Ryan Franklin, Matt Lawton, David Segui and Neifi Perez.
I'm not arguing that Bonds isn't a great hitter. I'm arguing that he's a cheating scumbag.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
No, not Grimsley
August 8, 2007 - 11:20 ET by dvdaughtryGrimsley was terrible (in a relative sense). That's why he wasn't mentioned with Bonds and Sheff.
But those other players, I feel, support my argument. They aren't good MLers and steriods didn't make them any better.
I will not argue that Bonds is not a scumbag. He is arrogant and self absorbed. However, I will not concede that steroids made him into the player he is.
My opinion is that if he doesn't hit 755 HR he would still be the best player in MLB history. Take his numbers pre 2003 or whatever year he hit 73 HR and average them out over 22 seasons. He's still HOF and arguably the best ever.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Are you really Barry Bonds in real life?
August 8, 2007 - 12:07 ET by Fidel SarcastroUmm, I'm pretty sure that my point was 'steroids turns marginal players into good one and good ones into great ones'. You may be absolutely right that Grimsley was a "terrible player". But that begs an obvious question - if he was a bad player, as you claimed, then why did he have a 17 year major league career? Was he a very good player that turned into a bad player when he started taking steroids? Is that what you're claiming? Honestly? Is that the argument you're making?
Or was he just a marginal player who extended his career and inflated his stats by taking steroids?
And you can extrapolate his pre-steroidal stats all you want, but that would be pointless. First of all, had he not taken steroids it would be highly doubtful that his career would have lasted 22 years. Secondly, you're assuming that he would have maintained the same level of performance through his late 30's that he had in his mid-20's. That's asinine. It's much more likely that his numbers would have dipped as he got older (just like they do for every non-chemically enhanced player in major league history).
Thirdly, from 1986-1999 Bonds career batting average was .288. That's hardly a number that merits "greatest hitter of all time" consideration. Amazingly, from 2000-2004 his batting average skyrocketed to .339 (not that steroids helps you hit the ball though - I'm sure it's just a coincidence).
You're in a hole. Stop digging.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
If Bonds hadn't taken
August 8, 2007 - 12:08 ET by balboaIf Bonds hadn't taken performance enhancing drugs (I believe he did), he would still be a Hall of Famer. He wouldn't be the home run champ, but he'd still be one of the greats.
That's what I used to think
August 8, 2007 - 12:19 ET by Fidel SarcastroBonds (pre-steroids) - .288 career hitter & 32 HR's per year
That's certainly good. But "greatest of all time"? Not by a mile. Those stats are almost identical to those of Carlos Lee, currently an OF for the Houston Astros. Does that make Lee one of the all-time greats too?
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
He still would have reached
August 8, 2007 - 13:04 ET by balboaHe still would have reached the 500/500 plateau, which is good enough for the H of F.
We'll never know
August 8, 2007 - 13:24 ET by Fidel SarcastroWe can assume all sorts of things. Seven years ago Ken Griffey Jr was a lock to shatter Aaron's record. Now? He's an afterthought.
It's a pity that we'll never know what he would have become drug-free.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
Greatest of All Time
August 8, 2007 - 13:29 ET by dvdaughtryLee is nearly a liability in the field. Bonds 8 Gold Gloves.
Lee, runs a little, Bonds 500 SB.
MVP's Lee: 0 Bonds: 7 (MLB record)
Do a little more thinking next time.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Nice Touch
August 8, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Fidel SarcastroA little more thinking? Hmmm, who was is that said that steroids make you a worse player?
Four of Bonds' MVP awards came after he started juicing. And Bonds has been a liability in the OF for a loooong time. The Lee comparison was just to illustrate how ridiculous your assertion was that Bonds would have been on of the greatest HITTERS of all time before he juiced.
But now that you've reduced your argument to petty non sequiturs, I guess I can declare victory.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
Was he a very good player
August 8, 2007 - 13:26 ET by dvdaughtryWas he a very good player that turned into a bad player when he started taking steroids? Is that what you're claiming? Honestly? Is that the argument you're making?
I'm saying he sucked without them and sucked with them. They did not do anything to help his career. Just like the other guys you mentioned.
First of all, had he not taken steroids it would be highly doubtful that his career would have lasted 22 years.
Big assumption with nothing to back it up.
Secondly, you're assuming that he would have maintained the same level of performance through his late 30's that he had in his mid-20's. That's asinine.
Aaron stayed consistant through his late 30's and Bonds has the benefits of modern medicine. No reason to think an OF couldn't play 20+ years.
Thirdly, from 1986-1999 Bonds career batting average was .288. That's hardly a number that merits "greatest hitter of all time" consideration.
Never said "hitter". Said player. One of 4 players to have career 300 HR 300 Steals. Only player to have 500 HR and 500 steals. Eight or nine gold gloves. He did EVERYTHING. Even made his team mates better: Jeff Kent is a HOF because of Bonds.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
" Jeff Kent is a HOF
August 8, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Fidel Sarcastro" Jeff Kent is a HOF because of Bonds" - dvdaughtry
I just wanted to preserve that quote for historical perspective.
A couple quick questions;
1. What percentage of MLB players' careers last more than 20 years? We'll leave out the fact that this number is probably skewed upward by pitchers and AL DH's).
2. How did Grimsley last 15+ years if he sucked?
3. If steroids didn't help Grimsley, then why did he take them?
4. How many HR's did Aaron hit after he turned 40?
5. If Aaron was consistent in his late 30's (as you stated), then why was his BA 40+ points lower after he turned 35 (as opposed to Bonds, who hit 50+ points HIGHER after he turned 35)?
We can do this all day long.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt
Gimme a Break
August 8, 2007 - 10:46 ET by PopularTechSteroids allow you to build and maintain more muscle than normally possible which equals more power. That means he can swing the bat faster and hit the ball harder. How many Home Runs have you seen Bonds hit 5-10 feet over the wall? Without Steroids those would either be fly outs or doubles. You statement is meaningless because Bonds was already a talented hitter, hitting near or over .300 prior to 1999. Steroids allowed him to start hitting insane amounts of HRs.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Strength does not equal HR
August 8, 2007 - 11:23 ET by dvdaughtryIf it did, why doen't Frank Thomas have 800, or David Ortiz hit 80 in a season?
Mantle was 5'11", Aaron was not all that big.
How many dingers have I seen him hit 5-10 over the wall?
Not to many. Ask those kayakers in McCovey Cove about that.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
Funny that you bring up Thomas
August 8, 2007 - 13:43 ET by Fidel SarcastroThe first 10 full years of Thomas' career, he had a BA of .320 while averaging 35 HR's per yer. It was only after that that he suffered a serious of debilitating injuries. Maybe he should have taken steroids to recover faster. Maybe he should have taken steroids to increase his fast muscle twitch response. If we were to assume that he would have responded to the steroids just like Bonds did (18% increase in HRs) would have hit 961 HR's (with an eye-popping .377 BA during the last run) by the time he was Bonds age.
So which do you think he'd rather have - the HR record or his dignity/integrity?
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Hannah Arendt